REALITIES OF MUSLIMS IN AMERICA

Islamic Center of Irving’s Mass Data Deletions

By Anne Christine Hoff

Islamic religious leaders at a local Texas mosque allege that former leaders stole key files and security camera footage.

According to an announcement posted on December 31, 2019, the current leaders alleged former Shura council members deleted key files and transferred files from security camera footage.

On December 31, 2019, the Islamic Center of Irving (ICI) announced on its website that two members of ICI’s outgoing Shura Council had “engaged in mass data deletions, downloading, copying of thousands of documents and emails.” The announcement notes that information about lawsuits and audio/video files of Congregants were transferred from ICI’s camera and security systems. According to the announcement, the mosque’s attempts to have the information returned have gone unanswered. Later the announcement was deleted from the ICI website.

While information regarding the two  councils is not available on ICI’s website, ICI announced the results of the 2019 election and the current Shura Council on October 22, 2019. The announcement lists Hassan A. Hye as the current ICI president. In another announcement from October 21, 2016, Bayinnah Institute and superstar preacher Nouman Ali Khan presents himself as  the former president of the Islamic Center of Irving. This information is corroborated by a photo on ICI’s Facebook page of Nouman Ali Khan at a fundraiser in his capacity as ICI President in 2017.

Khan first faced scrutiny in 2017 after screenshots went pubic showing him bribing, threatening and “sexting” with different women online. Khan defended his actions by stating in a Facebook post that he had been divorced for two years and that both his and the women’s actions were based on mutual consent.

Muslim American writer and lawyer Rabia Chaudry then reported on Facebook that “multiple people have had Facebook posts removed and a number of people have had their Twitter accounts suspended for criticizing Bayinnah” and also speculated that possibly Khan had threatened to bury them in legal fees.

There have been two criminal incidents that brought media coverage to ICI in the last year. In May 2019, a security guard at ICI, Syed Humzah Hashmi, was arrested for aggravated sexual assault of a child. According to the arrest warrant, the male victim was in third grade and attended the Islamic School of Irving. The alleged assaults allegedly included attempted sodomy and took place at the Islamic Center of Irving from August 2016 through June 2017.

A few months later, the former imam of Islamic Center of Irving, Zia ul-Haq Sheikh. Imam Sheikh was ordered to pay $2.55 million to a woman identified as Jane Doe in the lawsuit alleging sexual exploitation.

The lawsuit states:

“Jane’s emotional dependency as a result of being counseled by the defendant from age 13 to age 19 led Jane to be fearful of losing the defendant’s support in her life, and therefore created a situation where Jane was unable to refuse the defendant’s requests.”

Sheikh allegedly requested sexually explicit photos and videos and ultimately intercourse from Doe in exchange for his support. According to the lawsuit, when the woman was nineteen, shortly after Sheikh and Doe had sex at a Motel 6, Sheikh gave Doe a pregnancy test to make sure he wouldn’t lose his job and then cut off contact with her.

The lawsuit was filed in July 2018 and was later amended to include an allegation of sexual assault.

Zia Sheikh was for a time a darling of the local news media. In 2015, after former mayor of Irving Beth Van Duyne objected to the opening of an Islamic Tribunal in Irving, of which Sheikh was a member, the Dallas Observer wrote a piece called “Imam Zia Sheikh opens minds to the real Islam.” D magazine wrote another glowing piece about the imam called “Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Irving (and the Imam who has to tolerate it)”.

ICI’s Shura Council, according to an archived page from Islamic Center of Irving’s website, as late as February 2012, included a representative for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). ISNA was founded as an organization of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1970s. According to Brotherhood archival documents submitted during the Holy Land Foundation Trial, it was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, called “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. That document was entered into evidence during the Holy Land Foundation Trial as “Elbarasse Search-3.”

The face behind the lawsuits against Sheikh is an unlikely one. Alia Salem is the former head of CAIR DFW as well as the founder and executive director of FACE (“Facing Abuse in Community Environments”). According to their website, that organization is designed to counter abuses of power within leadership in the Islamic community. Before founding FACE, she created a stir when she advised local Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI investigating ISIS.

ICI’s current religious leaders seem as eager as the previous council to keep these events out of the public eye. On January 13th, an announcement on the ICI homepage stated that after a meeting on Sunday, January 12, attended by two former ICI presidents, the current ICI Shura Council, members of the ICI Shura Body, and “a group of brothers,” the various parties completed the transition from the previous Shura Council and came to an agreement.

Current ICI president Hassan A. Hye asked that members of the masjid “refrain from posting or commenting in public forums” regarding ICI or matters related to it.

Given the legal and ethical cloud hovering over ICI’s recent leaders and staff, there’s serious questions to be asked about the management of Irving Masjid. The Islamist penchant for covering up scandal is sure to only exacerbate community dissension. Irving Masjid congregants should think seriously about following the maxim that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” and bucking leadership which seeks to silence and protect rather than expose wrongdoing.

 Anne-Christine Hoff is the Dallas associate of the Counter Islamist Grid. You can connect with her on LinkedIn.

THE KORAN

BIBLE OF THE MUSLIM TERRORIST:

“The Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/08/new-novel-blasphemes-fornicating-dog.html

Koran 2:191 "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them"
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".

DID DIRTY MUSLIM SAUDIS MONEY FINANCE THE BUSH, CLINTON AND OBAMA LIBRARIES?

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/09/amil-imani-myth-of-moderate-muslim-once.html

“The tentacles of the Islamist hydra have deeply penetrated the world. The Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear threat in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood also wages its deadly campaign through its dozens of well-established and functioning branches all over the world.”

“The Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11/2001, said:

* We will take advantage of their immigration policy to infiltrate them.

* We will use their own welfare system to provide us with food, housing, schooling, and health care, while we out breed them and plot against them. We will Caliphate on their dime.

* We will use political correctness as a weapon. Anyone who criticizes us, we will take the opportunity to grandstand and curry favor from the media and Democrats and loudly accuse our critics of being an Islamophobe.

* We will use their own discrimination laws against them and slowly introduce Sharia Law into their culture..

 

Duping Americans on Sharia

A detailed look at how Islamic apologist extraordinaire John Esposito whitewashes Islamic terror.

January 14, 2020 

Raymond Ibrahim

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Does Islam itself promote hostility for and violence against non-Muslims, or are all the difficulties between the West and Islam based on secondary factors—from “radical” interpretations of Islam, to economics and grievances?

This is the fundamental question.

Obviously, if “anti-infidel” hostility is inherent to Islam itself, then the conflict becomes existential—a true clash of civilizations, with no easy fixes and lots of ugly implications along the horizon.

Because of this truism, those whose job it is to whitewash Islam’s image in the West insist on the opposite—that all difficulties are temporal and not rooted to innate Islamic teachings.

Enter Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know, co-authored by John Esposito and Natana J. Delong-Bas.  The authors’ goal is to exonerate Shariah, which they portray as enshrining “the common good (maslahah), human dignity, social justice, and the centrality of the community” from Western criticism or fear, which they say is based solely on “myth” and “sensationalism.”

In their introductory chapters they define Shariah as being built upon the words of the Koran and the Sunna (or example) of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as contained in sahih (canonical) hadiths.  They add: “Shariah and Islamic law are not the same thing.  The distinction between divine law (Shariah) and its human interpretation, application, and development (Islamic law) is important to keep in mind throughout this book…. Whereas Shariah is immutable and infallible, Islamic law (fiqh) is fallible and changeable.”

Next the authors highlight how important Shariah is to a majority of Muslims.  They cite a 2013 Pew Poll which found that  69% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa, 73% in South Asia, and 55% in Central Asia believe that “Shariah is God’s [Allah’s] divine revelation.”

Even larger numbers “favored the establishment of Shariah as official law”: 99% in Afghanistan, 84% in South Asia, 74% in the Middle East and North Africa, and 64% in sub-Saharan Africa.

So far so good.  The authors’ introductory claims (that Shariah is fundamental to Islam) and statistics (that hundreds of millions of Muslims revere and wish to see it implemented) are correct.

But they also beg the aforementioned question: is Shariah itself behind the intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism committed in the name of Islam?

Here, the hitherto objective authors shift gears and take on the mantle of apologists. Their thesis is simple: Any and all negative activities Muslims engage in are to be pinned on anything and everything—so long as it’s not Shariah.

In order to support this otherwise unsupportable position, and as might be expected, the remainder of the book consists of obfuscation, dissembling, and lots and lots of contextual omissions and historical distortions.

A small sampling follows:

Shariah on Women

The authors quote and discuss at length many Koran verses about women that seem positive (Koran 30:21, 3:195, and 2:187), without alluding to counter verses that permit husbands to beat their wives (4:34) and treat them as “fields” to be “plowed however you wish” (2:223).  Nor do they deal with Muhammad’s assertions that women are “lacking in intelligence” and will form the bulk of hell’s denizens, as recounted in a canonical hadith.

They partially quote Koran 4:3: “…marry those that please you of other women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one.”  This suits the authors’ purpose, which is to present the Koran as implicitly recommending only one wife, since it acknowledges the near impossibility for a man to treat all wives equally.  Yet the authors deliberately cut off the continuation of that verse—which permits Muslim men to copulate with an unlimited amount of sex slaves (ma malakat aymanukum) even if they are married.

They also dissemble about child marriage, saying “classical Islamic law” permits it, but only when “the child reaches a mature age.”   Yet they make no mention that, based on Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha—that is, based on his Sunna, which is immutable and part of Shariah—nine is considered a “mature age.”

Freedom of Religion and Non-Muslims

The authors claim that “There are more than 100 Quranic verses that … affirm freedom of religion and conscience.”  They quote many at length and assert that “The guiding Shariah principle … underscored by Quran 3:28, 29:46, and 60:89, is that believers should treat unbelievers decently and equitably as long as the unbelievers do not behave aggressively.”

Yet they fail to mention or sideline the many contradictory verses that call for relentless war on non-Muslims—who are further likened to dumb cattle in Koran 25:44 —until they surrender, one way or another, to Islam (e.g., 8:39, 9:5, 9:29).

They fail to quote the verses that form the highly divisive doctrine of al-wala’ w’al bara’ (“Loyalty and Enmity”), including Koran 5:51, which forbids Muslims from befriending Jews and Christians, and Koran 60:4, which commands Muslims to harbor only “hate” for non-Muslims, until they “believe in Allah alone.”

Needless to say, they ignore Koran 3:28, which permits Muslims to feign friendship for non-Muslims, whenever the former are under the latter’s authority (such is the doctrine of taqiyya; see here, here, here, here, and here for examples).

It is, incidentally, because of all these divisive Koran verses—because of Shariah—that the Islamic State forthrightly explained, “We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.”

The closest the authors get to address these issues is in a section titled, “Can Muslims in the West be Loyal Citizens.”  They respond with a yes—but the evidence they cite are polls (based on wishful interpretations), which of course tells the reader little about the topic they purport to “de-mythologize”: Shariah.

Jihad

As might be expected, when the authors reach the topic of jihad, their dissembling reaches a new level.  They repeatedly insist that jihad, as enshrined in Shariah, is simply the Muslim counterpart of Western Just War theory, which teaches that war and aggression are permissible, but only in defense or to recover one’s territory from occupiers:  “The lesser or outer jihad involves defending Islam and the Muslim community.”   As usual, they spend much time quoting and elaborating on Koran verses that comport with this position, while ignoring or sidelining the many contradictory verses.  In reality, mainstream Islam holds that the Koran’s “Sword Verses” (especially 9:5 and 9:29) have abrogated all the peaceful ones, thereby making warfare on non-Muslims—for no less a reason than that they are non-Muslims—obligatory.

Consider Koran 9:29:  “Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth [Islam] from the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

What, exactly, is “defensive” about this verse?

Similarly, they claim that dar al-harb, or “abode of war”—Islam’s designation for all those non-Muslim territories (such as Europe) that Muslims were historically in a permanent state of war with—“applied to other parties with whom Muslims were in conflict.” Again, they fail to mention that the primary reason Muslims were “in conflict” with them was because they were non-Muslim, and that all non-Muslim territories were by default part of the “abode of war,” except when treaties advantageous to Islam were drawn.

Instead, the authors say, “The territories classified as the abode of war were those that refused to provide such protection to Muslims and their clients”—thereby implying Muslims were hostile to, say, Europe, because Europe was first hostile to Muslims.  (Reality, as chronicled in Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, was the exact opposite.)

Miscellaneous Subterfuge

One can go on and on; the authors engage in other forms of subterfuge to exonerate Shariah.  They frequently project a Western veneer to Islamic terms and concepts, saying for example that Shariah is ultimately about “promoting good and preventing evil”—which sounds admirable—without pointing out that, based on the Koran and Sunna (that is, Shariah), conquering non-Muslim territories is about “promoting good” and keeping women under wraps and indoors, beating them as required, is about “preventing vice.”

While admitting that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities are currently being persecuted, not only do the authors insist that this has nothing to do with Shariah, but they invoke relativistic thinking: “Just as Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are often concerned with their rights and civil liberties as minorities,” they say, “so some consider the rights and status of non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim countries to be a parallel issue.” In other words, because some Americans view Muslims in their midst with suspicion, the ongoing enslavement and slaughter of Christians—more than 6,000 in Nigeria alone since January 2018—and ban on or destruction of churches is a sort of tit for tat, a “parallel issue” that can only be solved when the West becomes less critical about Islam.

Relativism is also invoked during the authors’ brief treatment of apostasy in Islam: “Historically, apostasy was sometimes punishable by death in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.”  They claim that apostasy is still a major issue in Islam due to “radical” interpretations or politics—bolstering their position by again quoting the same Koran verses that seem to support freedom of religion—without mentioning, say, the canonical hadith (meaning part of Shariah) where Muhammad said, “Whoever leaves his religion [Islam], kill him.”

Such is how Islam’s skilled apologists dupe the West: they admit to some of the more controversial aspects that many other apologists shy away from—namely that Shariah is indeed foundational to Islam and that hundreds of millions of Muslims revere and wish to see it implemented—but then, having established trust with the reader, they slip back into the “game,” portraying all the intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism daily committed in the name of Islam as products of anything and everything—fallible Muslim interpretations, self-serving clerics and terrorists, socio-economic pressures, Western criticism or encroachments—never Shariah itself.

Contrary to its subtitle, then, John Esposito’s  and Natana J. Delong-Bas’s Shariah is not “what everyone needs to know”; rather, it is what non-Muslims need to believe in order to give Shariah—which is fundamentally hostile to all persons and things un-Islamic—a free pass.

Understanding the World's Greatest Source of Jew-Hatred

A sober examination of Islam's historical treatment of Jews.

January 30, 2020 

Allon Friedman

[To order Andrew Bostom's new paperback edition of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, CLICK HERE.]

During a public U.S. Congressional hearing held in April 2019, data was presented from a worldwide survey performed between 2014 and 2017 by the Anti-Defamation League that found the 16 nations with the highest prevalence of extreme antisemitism to all be Muslim countries in the Middle East. In response to the presentation of these data, the ADL's Senior Vice President for Policy Eileen Hershenov had this to say: "vulnerable, marginalized communities have bigotry within them." 

If explaining away Muslim Jew-hatred as somehow a result of vulnerability and marginalization in societies that are overwhelmingly Muslim strikes one as troubling, well it should; especially if the person doing the explaining represents an organization that claims "its timeless mission is to protect the Jewish people." Any person with a healthy sense of self-preservation might ponder other questions that arise from this case. Like, for instance: Why is extreme antisemitism so ubiquitous in the Arab Muslim world? Or: Why is a prominent Jewish advocacy organization so intent on apologizing for Islamic Jew hatred? 

Unfortunately, anyone searching for answers to these timely questions is not going to find them anywhere in the public arena. In fact, a conspiracy of sorts has prevailed on college campuses, in Hollywood, in the establishment media, in think tanks, and in other cultural institutions, both Left and Right, where honest and open discussion of Islamic anti-Semitism is taboo because of the fear of social ostracism and professional suicide.

Shamefully, many Jews too often aid and abet this ugly and dangerous conspiracy. 

Enter Andrew Bostom, M.D., an Associate Professor of Family Medicine at Brown University, who has just released a second (paperback) edition of his magnum opus The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. It is a desperately needed corrective to the amnesia, ignorance, and self-destructive denial of reality that currently plagues much of Western Civilization and its Jewish community when it comes to Islam's historical treatment of Jews. 

Full disclosure: I worked with Andrew as a research collaborator and have remained friends since. Bostom drew on his professional skills as a physician, medical researcher and epidemiologist to carefully construct an understanding of the underpinnings of Jew-hatred within Islamic theology and civilization. The empirical evidence Bostom provides is so comprehensive and powerful that it hits the reader like a tsunami.

Bostom is very careful to let Islam’s core texts and its most renowned and influential theologians, scholars, jurists, and leaders--from Islam’s inception to the 21st century--speak for themselves on this matter, which makes the overall argument even more persuasive. Perhaps inspired by his medical training, the author also offers the reader dozens of "case studies" culled from primary sources as well as third-party observers over disparate eras and lands (some translated for the first time) that encapsulate how Jews, identified in the Koran as the worst enemies of the Muslims, have suffered immeasurably as dhimmis, or subjugated people, under Islamic rule up to the present time.

The new edition also features an updated preface that elegantly demonstrates how ancient antisemitic doctrines within Islam have reverberated through the centuries to explain contemporary Muslim antagonism and violence directed towards Jews. If there is any downside to this book, it is that becoming so thoroughly informed about the predations suffered by Jews throughout the ages can weigh heavily on the soul.  

The author does, however, provide the blueprint for a constructive way forward by highlighting the immediate post-World War II efforts of Jules Isaac, a French historian and Holocaust survivor. Isaac, working with willing Christian colleagues and directly appealing to two popes, helped catalyze a movement that culminated in the Second Vatican Council and the Nostra Aetate (1965) declaration, which was an unprecedented and brutally honest document detailing the failings of the Church when it came to the treatment of Jews. This movement ultimately reformed Christian teaching about the Jews and greatly advanced Christian-Jewish relations. 

Who should buy this book? Anyone who wants to understand the world as it is today in an unvarnished presentation, free of the distortions of political correctness; anyone who wants to understand the fundamental underpinnings of the genocidal war against Israel; anyone who wants to understand why Jews in Europe today are under siege.  And anyone who wants to save American Jewry as it stands at a precipice while Islamic Jew-hatred in the world escalates frighteningly unchecked.

Allon Friedman, M.D., is a practicing physician and vice president of the Jewish American Affairs Committee of Indiana. JAACI is a leading advocate for Jews and Israel in Indiana was instrumental in passing Indiana’s anti-BDS law, the second in the nation. Dr. Friedman’s essays and editorials have been published locally as well as in various media outlets across North America and Israel.