The Terror Finance Blog

Is US Aid to Afghanistan Buying Expensive Condos in Dubai? Why the Obama Administration Doesn’t Seem to Care

January 26, 2011 

 By Rachel Ehrenfeld

In his State of the Union speech on January 25th, the President stated:

“The Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them.”

It is not a secret that President Karzai’s government is rife with corruption.  It is misappropriating and siphoning off as many billions dollars from foreign aid, as it can. This lawlessness deepens the region's political and economic instability that enables the Taliban and other insurgencies to prosper.

Sources close to the investigation of the “fraud” at Afghanistan’s largest bank, Kabul Bank, confirmed that the inquires identified that among the suspects of fraud and suspicious loans to the bank's shareholders, are the President brother Mahmoud Karzai, and Haseen Fahim, the brother of the first vice president, Gen. Muhammad Qasim Fahim.

The IMF estimates the loss at $850 million. However, knowledgeable independent sources who wish to remain nameless say the loss totals  more than one billion dollar.

How could this happen?  The Chairman of Kabul Bank is alleged to have bought 20 condos on Dubai's Palm Jumeirah Island, averaging  $7 million per condo. He bought them in his personal name with depositors’ money. He maintains that he bought them for the “benefit of ‘certain’ people who want to remain anonymous.” But it has been discovered that the condos are occupied by relatives of Cabinet members, including Mahmoud Karzi, the president’s brother.

This is but one example of Karzai's government rampant corruption.

Incredibly, most U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Treasury programs and projects do not include any consideration for the criminogenic environments created by pouring huge funding into Finance, Health and Infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, with little or no oversight.

U.S. Bank supervision assistance to the Central Bank does NOT include a program to detect or prevent fraud. The reason for this, according to an AID officer: “we don’t want to offend the counterparts by including Criminal conduct prevention measures.”

It is time the Obama Administration to talk less about “good governance,” and stops the corrupting relationship with the Afghan government. It is time to stop the politically correct attitude that allows the disappearance of billions of dollars aimed at improving the condition of the Afghan’s people. And it is time to take serious action to prevent the massive fraud perpetrated by the Afghans, and often executed in partnership with members of international aid agencies and foreign contractors.

Although the President did not mention it in his address, fighting and corruption in Afghanistan will continue unless the U.S. takes steps using environmentally safe methods to eradicate Afghan opium poppy and Hashish cultivation and heroin production. 

The Afghan people would benefit from a stable government that could help build a stable economy, only once the vast illegal income that generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues are eliminated. Until then, expect more of the same.

 

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the NY based American Center for Democracy, and author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It.

This article  was first published by BIG PEACE.

STOP FUNDING UNRWA

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

The House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold hearing today on “The United Nations: Urgent Problems that Need Congressional Action,” including recommendations to stop funding he UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Perhaps now that the U.S. debt crossed 14 Trillion dollars, would be a good time to stop funding this corrupt organization that fosters the Palestinian “refugees” problem and funds Hamas.

UNRWA began its emergency food and shelter aid programs Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in May 1950. Over the years, though its official mandate remained the same, UNRWA has been providing governmental and development services. UNRWA’s former legal advisor and general counsel, James G. Lindsay, published in 2009 an important study: “Fixing UNRWA: Repairing the UN’s Troubled System of Aid to Palestinian Refugees.” Mr. Lindsay shows how UNRWA changed its function from status based (refugees) to need based  (dependents). More than six decades later, and despite the establishment of an independent Palestinian governing body, UNRWA continues to operate in parallel with the government, both in the PA ruled West Bank and Hamas ruled Gaza.

The world community facilitated Hamas’ victory in the 2006 Palestinian Authority election, when it allowed Hamas to run under the name “List of Change and Reform.” In June 2007, Hamas took control over the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Since then, despite repeated promises to cut off funds to Hamas, international aid organizations and many countries have continued funneling money to Gaza, purportedly for humanitarian aid, but more recently to fund the “Gaza Administration.” Hamas’ rule over Gaza does not seem to be an obstacle to funding it.

 Although the U.S. designation of Hamas terrorists (individuals) is insufficient, the organization and its various entities are designated by the Treasury Department on its Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN). But the UN does not list Hamas as a terrorist organization. The UN only lists the Taliban and al Qaeda as terrorists. The May 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report includes UNRWA’s admission that it does not screen prospective staff or aid recipients for ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Jihad (IJG), or other local terrorist groups.

The GAO report stated: “According to UNRWA, the UN Security Council has various working groups for terrorism-related issues, but the Sanctions Committee’s UN 1267 list is currently the only such UN terrorist screening list available….the list is limited to those individuals or entities affiliated with Al-Qaida and the Taliban and thus does not specifically include major regional groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which the United States has designated as foreign terrorist organizations.”

By the end of 2007, UNRWA employed more than 29,000, Less than 200 were listed as “international,” the rest were Palestinian, organized in unions. UNRWA’s Arab workers union is controlled by Hamas. In 2003 Hamas won more than 90% of the votes. In 2005, UNRWA provided a large increase in salaries for its thousands of workers. Since HAMAS deducts 3%-5% of the UNRWA paid annual salaries as membership fees, the raise contributes directly to HAMAS’ coffers. Through another affiliate, the Islamic Bloc, Hamas also controls the UNRWA teachers union and UNRWA-funded schools in Gaza.

However this did not seem to disturb UNRWA’s former Commissioner Peter Hansen, who in October 2004 told the Canadian Broadcasting Cooperation “I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll, and I don’t see that as a crime.”

UNRWA facilities and personnel have also been tied to numerous terrorist attacks on Israel. Its schools have been used as meeting places for Hamas terrorists and weapons storage, and UNRWA’s Hamas affiliated staff members have used UNRWA equipment to transport arms for use in terrorist activities. For example, IDF captured documents and evidence during Operation Cast Lead in 2008, showed that the UNRWA school compound across from the Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis was used by Hamas to launch rockets into Israel, and that other UNRWA schools were used to store weapons and to hide Hamas operatives.

On January 12, 2009, Israeli Public Security Minister Avi Dichter stated that Shifa Hospital, Gaza City’s main medical center, has become the de facto Hamas headquarters, and that: “Shifa Hospital has long ago ceased to be just a hospital, just as the UN humanitarian and health services in Gaza long ago ceased to be just humanitarian services providing food and medical services.” Still, UNRWA’s response was: ”Where any abuse of UN installations is discovered the UN carries out disciplinary action, including dismissals.”

Not surprisingly, in January 2011, Hamas announced that it  won 70.5% of Gaza’s Nursing Association’s representatives vote. Their competitors, another terrorist designated groups, the Islamic Jihad (IJG), won 29.5%. UNRWA pays their salaries.

In 2009, following Israel’s operation Cast Lead, conducted to stop Hamas & Islamic Jihad rockets attacks on Israel, the European Commission pledged at least $554 to Gaza in “humanitarian aid.” In June 2010, the Obama administration promised $400 million in aid to the West Bank and Gaza. In March 2009, the U.S. pledged $300 million earmarked for Gaza and $600 million to the West Bank. UNRWA annually transfers about $200 million in cash to Gaza.

PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad sends $120 million a month from its budget (most of which comes from foreign aid) to Gaza. In September 2010, he openly stated that he had sent Gaza $4.3 billion over the previous three years, part of which pays the salaries of Hamas municipal employees. According to Mr., Fayyad, 54% of the PA’s $3.17 billion 2010 budget went to Gaza.

In 2009, following Israel’s operation Cast Lead to stop Hamas & Islamic Jihad rockets attacks on Israel, the European Commission pledged at least $554 to Gaza in “humanitarian aid.” Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE promised billions more.  But these wealthy Arab nations are known to renege on their financial aid to the Palestinians, including Hamas. Their promises get them lots of publicity, while they let the West foot the bill.

For example, an October 2010 Foreign Policy article reported that “Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, pledged $30 million for U.N. humanitarian operations in Gaza… the money has never arrived.”

However, UNWRA does not rely only on pledges. The UN agency raises money for Gaza through its Web site, with payments going through WorldPay (part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group), the Arab Bank PLC in Gaza and HSBC in Amman, Jordan. Those funds come in addition to UNRWA’s annual budget of $400 million. How much of it goes to Hamas members?

Incredibly,UNRWA calls it’s own tune, while the U.S. pays for it. UNRWA have long violated and subverted U.S. principles and interests, but it will soon ask to renew its mandate that is about to expire in June.

It is time the House Foreign Affairs Committee recommends to end the wasting of U.S. taxpayers’ money on the terrorist supporting UNRWA.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the NY based American Center for Democracy, and author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It.

This article was published by BIG PEACE and FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS .

 

Though Europe Rots, We Must Defend the West

With free speech under attack, our civilization’s survival is at stake.

By Alyssa A. Lappen
Pajamas Media | Jan. 18, 2011

Defending the rights to free speech of editor, columnist and Danish and International Free Press Society president Lars Hedegaard — especially the right to criticize orthodox Islam as freely as one may Christianity or Judaism — now equals defending the right of Western civilization to survive. 1 Barring an effective international outcry — or a rare fever of Sudden Enlightenment Syndrome one morning soon awakening Denmark’s Public Prosecutor with common sense — Hedegaard will face trial on Danish racism charges and conviction alike on Jan. 24, 2011: 2 a veritable auto da fé.

In Dec. 2009, Hedegaard remarked in a taped interview upon certain domestic violence peculiar to Muslim families (“they” rape their own children). He was then charged as a common criminal. 3

In 1969, Denmark’s proud history of supporting freedom, whatever the cost, enticed me to live for a summer with a family of potters in Grena, Jutland. In the 1940s, Denmark saved virtually its entire Jewish population from a regime whose totalitarianism many Islamic leaders now hope to best. Since then, Denmark may have gone rotten. The state apparently deems it far less criminal for groups driven by ideological or religious belief to behave criminally, than for anyone to publicly observe their heinous deeds. All the more, as (in this case) said criminal behavior would in other situations scandalize civilized people. Should a modern Danish coven of warlocks and witches regularly rape and roast their teenage daughters, doubtless the public prosecutor would charge no one for saying as much.

Alas, Hedegaard challenges modern Danish liberalism too, as he did in a Jan. 2009 interview with me. 4

Denmarks’ Public Prosecutor charged Hedegaard with racism for allegedly violating article 266 b of its penal code, (aka “racism clause”). This allows a prosecutor to infer criminal offense in any statement that he believes threatens, demeans or ridicules anyone based on race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, religious faith or sexual orientation. In other words, the law gives the prosecutor endless latitude to levy criminal charges over a wide range of easily misconstrued statements by or about — well, almost anyone.5 This absurdity of law in effect lets Denmark’s public prosecutor lavish his taxpayer-funded time on perusing news and other taped records of public figures for factual statements on Islam or predominantly Muslim behaviors; and that is how he seems to cast his own prejudiced net.

In North America, free speech is presumed a fundamental right cemented into the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — namely the first article in the Bill of Rights that Congress passed, the states ratified and U.S. law adopted on Dec. 15, 1791. It naturally includes the right to criticize almost anything, short of treason, charges for which the U.S. has not prosecuted in a very long while. Moreover, foreigners can no longer easily rebuke Americans via foreign lawsuits for taking full advantage of that enshrined U.S. freedom. 6

But in the early 1960s, orthodox Islamic believers calling themselves the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan, in Arabic) initiated global efforts to destroy the West and its values, free speech foremost among them. By their thinking, God alone can make laws, not man — the only just laws therefore being Islamic (sharia). All others, especially secular Western laws, must go, particularly those allowing what Islamic law considers blasphemy and a capitol offense — any criticism of Islam or Mohammed.

In 1982 and again in 1991, the Brothers set to paper their long-held plans to decimate Western societies and impose global Islamic law. They declared war on basic human rights — evolved from Judeao-Christian traditions codified in King Henry I’s 1100 C.E. Charter of Liberties, 7and expanded into various forms of due process 8 via Britain’s 1215 Magna Carta, 9 King Edward I’s 1305 writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, 10 New York’s 1683 Charter of Liberties and Privileges, 11 William Penn’s 1701 Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges, 12 the U.S. 1791 Bill of Rights, article § 77 of the Danish Constitution (letting anyone publish without censorship or government consent) — and a host of like statutes in most Western nations. These culminated with the United Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, affirming human rights to “enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want….” 13

Upon first hearing of MB plans, Westerners generally react with stupefied incredulity. Some furiously rage at the messenger. Yet global Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi concretely stipulated 14 these MB plans on Dec. 1, 1982 in “Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy (Points of Departure, Elements, Procedures and Missions),” 15 which Swiss officials discovered in Nov. 2001 at the villa of MB chief financial officer Yusuf Nada. 16 North American MB chief Mohamed Akram on May 22, 1991 created a similar “regional” outline in an “Explanatory memorandum for the General Strategic goal for the Group in North America,” 17 presented as evidence by U.S. prosecutors to help convict five Holy Land Foundation officials of 108 terror-financing related charges. 18

The realities behind this decades-long Muslim Brotherhood campaign have now slammed Europe. On Dec. 3, 2010, Denmark’s public prosecutor figuratively collected his first scalp for racism, that of pastor and Member of Parliament Jesper Langballe, 19 not surprisingly for defending Hedegaard. “Of course Lars Hedegaard should not have said that there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters,” Langballe stated, “when the truth appears to be that they make due with killing their daughters (the so-called honor killings) and leave it to their uncles to rape them.”

Randers municipal court found MP Langballe (Danish People’s Party) guilty of hate speech under Denmark’s penal code, Article 266b after duly honoring Danish legal precedent to deny Langballe the right to prove his truthful allegation that Muslim families often sexually abuse and murder their daughters for family honor. In such cases, Danish law figures the truth immaterial. As if under Islamic libel law itself, 20 Denmark may nowadays convict a defendant solely upon the personal offense taken or perceived in his or her statement. No actual crime need have occurred.

At his kangaroo court trial, MP Langballe therefore concluded, “With this article in the penal code, I must be assumed convicted in advance. I have no intention of participating in this circus. Therefore I confess.” Denmark denied MP Langballe both freedom of speech and due process and may now fine or incarcerate him up to two years. 21

These are but the latest journalists, elected European officials and humanitarians charged for perceived defamations of Islam in their statements of fact and exact reiterations of Quranic and other Islamic sacred texts. Finland first stepped to the plate, in 2009 convicting its best known political blogger, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, then 38. 22

However in May 2008, Gregorius Nekschot, a pseudonymous Dutch cartoonist was similarly arrested and charged with discriminatory speech. In Sept. 2010, Dutch prosecutors finally dropped charges against Nekschot, on the eve of Holland’s next travesty of justice. Despite a court order that he dismantle his personal website, Nekschot was victorious. “I can carry on making caricatures, perhaps even more controversial ones, because I have been allowed to keep my anonymity,” he said.23

Then came five charges of hate speech against Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Prosecutors initially ruled that Wilders’ statements might hurt Muslim feelings but weren’t crimes. But in Jan. 2009, Amsterdam’s Appeals Court reversed the finding and ordered prosecutors to proceed. 24 At trial, an empaneled judge snidely remarked on Wilders’ intent to remain silent. An immediate appeal to replace the biased panel was denied. 25 Dutch prosecutors then reiterated the legality of criticizing religion (Muslim feelings determine no “facts of the case”), but trial judges ignored their request to acquit on all five charges.26

After incontestable judicial bias surfaced, however, a new appeals court on Oct. 22 terminated the Wilders trial. At a private May 2010 dinner party, Islamic expert and defense witness Hans Jansen revealed, magistrate Tom Schalken (among the Amsterdam judges to order Wilders’ prosecution) had approached to explain why Wilders must be prosecuted. Schalken’s unlawfully expressed, extra-judicial comment to a defense witness forced the appeals justices to order a new Wilders trial.27

Next up was Austria’s Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Pax Europa‘s Austrian representative and a former Organization for Security and Co-operation envoy in Europe. Pax Europa, focusing on sharia law incursions and simultaneous erosion of free speech in Europe, is Germany’s “foremost human rights organization,” she says. 28 In Sept. 2010, Sabaditsch-Wolff learned she was accused of “defamation of religion” during a 2009 three-part seminar on “Islamization of Europe” for the Freedom Education Institute (FEI). She is not a member of FEI or any part of the late, controversial Joerg Haider‘s “far-right” Austrian Freedom Party. But even if Sabaditsch-Wolff did belong, it would not be criminal: the state gives public monies to the Austrian Freedom Party’s Institute.

Moreover, Sabaditsch-Wolff based her academic observations on experience gained, by choice, from living most of her adult life “in Arab and Muslim-majority countries.” Exactly which statements prompted Vienna’s prosecutor to indict her for hate speech, he did not see fit to specify. 29 She was “tried” in Vienna, if you can call it that, in Nov. 2010. No decision has yet been announced.

That same month, the European Union required member states to implement the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia,” a measure adopted Nov. 28, 2008 to combat “certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” This EU legal provision required all EU member states to comply fully by Nov. 28, 2010, Sabaditsch-Wolff asserts, and punish “intentional conduct” considered a pretext to target “a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.” 30 Oblique or not, this means Muslims.

Who passed these measures, at whose proposal, without consulting Europe’s parliaments or populaces — and whether are they binding under national constitutions — should immediately arise as critical topics of debate in all EU member states. And Americans, lest we think ourselves immune, should steel the ramparts for the continuing onslaught upon our own treasured rights to free speech. Despite our new Free Speech protection measure, free speech remains under barrage assault.

NOTES:
1 In borrowing the title from the book of my friend and colleague, Ibn Warraq, I intend him the highest compliment for being, with Lars Hedegaard, among those at the vanguard of defending Western civilization.
2 “The scandal of Danish justice,” International Free Press Society, Dec. 12, 2010,http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/12/the-scandal- of-danish-justice/ (first viewed 12/12/2010).
3 “The scandal of Danish justice,” International Free Press Society, Dec. 12, 2010, ibid.
4 Alyssa A. Lappen, “The eternal Danish optimist,” Right Side News, Jan. 5, 2009, http://www.rightsidenews.com/200901043173/life-and-science/culture-war s/the-eternal-danish-optimist.html.
5 Ahmed Mohamud and Eva Agnete Selsing, “The lawsuit against Lars Hedegaard,” International Free Press Society, Sept. 27, 2010, http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/09/4087/ (viewed 1/9/2011).
6 NY Assembly Rep. Rory I. Lanceman, “Author of New York State’s first-in-the-nation law against “libel tourism” applauds congressional passage of the “Speech Act” to protect Americans’ 1st Amendment rights,” N.Y. Assembly District 25, Jul. 25, 2010, http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=025&sh=story&story=39928; Alyssa A. Lappen, “America’s First Amendment lifeline,” Human Events, 1/25/2008, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24649; “Gov. Patterson signs legislation protecting New Yorkers against infringement of First Amendment rights by foreign libel judgment,” New York State press release, May 1, 2008, http://www.r8ny.com/node/16798; On May 1, 2008, New York State established the first libel terrorism protection act in the U.S.; I played a critical role obtaining necessary legislative support, without which I suspect it would have been impossible to achieve passage of a federal law along the same lines.
7 “Charter of Liberties,” Medieval Sourcebook, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/hcoronation.html (viewed 1/10/2011).
8 “Due process,” U.S Constitution, 5th Amendment, annotations, p. 11, reprinted at FindLaw, undated, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/11.html; see also “Due process,” Cornell Univ. Law School, http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process (both viewed 1/10/2011)
9 “Magna Carta,” Britannia History, http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html
10 “A brief history of habeas corpus,” BBC, Mar. 9, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4329839.stm (viewed 1/10/2011).
11 Charter of Liberties & Privileges, NY, 1683, http://www.montauk.com/history/seeds/charter.htm (viewed 1/10/2011).
12 William Penn, “Charter of Privileges,” Oct. 28, 1701, http://www.constitution.org/bcp/penncharpriv.htm (1/10/2011).
13 “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations General Assembly, Dec. 10, 1948, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml; The document recognizes “the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people….” (emphasis added).
14 Lappen and Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Sharia financing and the coming ummah,” Chap. 28, Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency, ed. Jeffrey Norwitz, (U.S. Naval War College: 2008), pp. 389-404, http://www.alyssaalappen.org/wp-content/uploads/sharia-financing-and-t he-coming-ummah-by-ehrenfeld-and-lappen.pdf.
15 Yusuf Qaradawi, “Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy (Points of Departure, Elements, Procedures and Missions),” global Muslim Brotherhood, Dec. 1, 1982, as cited by Patrick Poole, “The Muslim Brotherhood Project,” Front Page Magazine, May 11, 2006, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4475 and http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4476 (first viewed 5/11/2006).
16 Olivier Guitta, “The Cartoon Jihad,” Weekly Standard, Feb. 20, 2006, http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/00 6/704xewyj.asp (viewed 2/22/2006).
17 Mohamed Akram, “Explanatory memorandum for the General Strategic goal for the Group in North America,” Muslim Brotherhood, global Muslim Brotherhood, North America, May 22, 1991, p. 15, http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/Akram_GeneralStrategic Goal.pdf (first viewed 9/18/2007).
18 Jason Trahan and Tanya Eiserer, “Holy Land Foundation defendants guilty,” Dallas Morning News, Nov. 28, 2008, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/112 508dnmetholylandverdicts.1e5022504.html; see also “Ruling: humanitarian aid to Palestine a front for Hamas support,” Raw Story, Nov. 24, 2008, http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Largest_Muslim_charity_in_US_ruled_1124. html; “US-based Muslim charity guilty of funding terrorism,” Telegraph, Nov. 24, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3515658/US- based-Muslim-charity-guilty-of-funding-terrorism.html; “Federal judge hands down sentences in Holy Land Foundation case,” Dept. of Justice, May 27, 2009, http://dallas.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/dl052709.htm (all viewed 12/2/2010).
19 “The scandal of Danish justice,” International Free Press Society, Dec. 12, 2010, ibid.
20 Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368), Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, 1991 and 1994, Amana Publications (revised ed., 1994), p. 730, as noted in Lappen, “Does sharia law now apply in the U.S.” Pajamas Media, Jan. 2, 2008, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sharia_libel_law_now_applies_i/.
21 “The scandal of Danish justice,” International Free Press Society, Dec. 12, 2010, ibid.
22 James Cohen, “23 minute interview with Jussi Halla-aho,” International Free Press Society, Sept. 17, 2009, http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/09/23-minute-intervi ew-with-jussi-halla-aho/ (viewed 1/10/2011); see also “Jussi Halla-aho,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho (viewed 1/10/2011).
23 Katrine Winkel Holm, “Prosecutor drops case against Dutch cartoonist,” International Free Speech Society, Sept. 25, 2010, http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/09/prosecutor-drops- case-against-dutch-cartoonist/ (viewed 9/30/2010).
24 Mike Corder, “Dutch court: prosecute anti-Islamic law-maker,” Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2009, as reprinted in http://sweetness-light.com/archive/court-prosecute-geert-wilders-for-h ate-speech (viewed 1/10/2011).
25 Bruce Mutsvairo, “Wilders hate speech trial to resume,” Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 5, 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/1005/Geert-Wilders-hate-speech-tri al-to-resume-in-Netherlands (10/6/2010).
26 “Dutch prosecutors sought anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders’ acquittal on five hate speech charges Friday, saying his criticism of the Muslim religion, though hurtful to some, was not criminal,” Radio Netherlands Worldwide, Oct. 15, 2010, http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/acquit-dutch-anti-islam-lawmaker-pr osecutors (viewed 1/10/2011).
27 “Hans Jansen, scholar of Islam, and a witness for the defense in the Wilders trial, describes a curious dinner party,” and “Uproar: Dutch court orders retrial for Wilders,” New English Review, Oct. 22, 2010, http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_months.cfm/m/10/y/2010/sr/100 (both viewed 10/22/2010).
28 A. Millar, “Lawfare in Austria: Is truth illegal?” Hudson Organization, Oct. 11, 2010, http://www.hudson-ny.org/1596/sabaditsch-wolff-lawfare-austria (first viewed 10/12/2010).
29 A. Millar, “Lawfare in Austria: Is truth illegal?” Hudson Organization, Oct. 11, 2010, ibid.
30 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: We are Being Systematically Silenced, This is our Time,” In Defense of Free Speech, Nov. 27, 2010, http://english.savefreespeech.org/?p=221 (viewed 1/10/2011).

The Muslim Brotherhood Path to Victory: parts 2 & 3 (of 3)

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

Funding the Movement

For the past five decades most funding to MB-affiliated organizations around the world – especially those involved directly in terrorist activities – has come from oil rich  countries in the Middle East. However the MB Palestinian branch, Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by the E.U. and U.S., seems to derive large sums of money from the EU, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and even the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

 

In fact, the world community facilitated Hamas' victory in the 2006 Palestinian Authority election, when it allowed Hamas to run under the name "List of Change and Reform." In June 2007, Hamas took control over the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority (PA).

 

Since then, despite repeated promises to cut off funds to Hamas, international aid organizations and many countries have continued funneling money to Gaza, purportedly for humanitarian aid, but more recently to fund the “Gaza Administration.”

 

Hamas’ rule over Gaza does not seem to be an obstacle to funding it. International aid organizations, the EU, and USAID, rely on the U.S. list of designated terrorists. The Treasury Department lists Hamas and its many organizations on its Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN). However, its list from January 6, 2011, named only the  Damascus-based Hamas Diplomatic Bureau official Moussa Abu-Marzuk, as a terrorist. Incredibly no other Hamas leader was identified on the list – not even the head of the organization, Khaled Mashal. 

 

In 2009, following Israel’s operation Cast Lead to stop Hamas & Islamic Jihad rockets attacks on Israel, the European Commission pledged at least $554 to Gaza in “humanitarian aid.” Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE promised billions more.  But these wealthy Arab nations are known to renege on their financial aid to the Palestinians, including Hamas. Their promises get them lots of publicity, while they let the West foot the bill.

 

For example, an October 2010 Foreign Policy article reported that “Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, pledged $30 million for U.N. humanitarian operations in Gaza… the money has never arrived.”

 

However, UNWRA does not rely only on pledges. The UN agency raises money for Gaza through its Web site, with payments going through WorldPay (part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group), the Arab Bank PLC in Gaza and HSBC in Amman, Jordan. Those funds come in addition to UNRWA's annual budget of $400 million.

 

The London-based Palestinians Relief and Development Fund, better known as Interpal, was outlawed by Israel in 1997, and designated by the United States as a supporter of terrorism in 2003. Despite mountains of evidence, Interpal used a well-oiled propaganda machine (and apparently Gordon Brown’s Palestinian leaning government) to escape unscathed from a UK inquiry into its Hamas ties in 2009. An earlier investigation in 1996 similarly exonerated the group, despite its open affiliations with the Qaradawi-led Union of Good, an umbrella group of over 50 charities that funnels money to Hamas. The U.S. only designated the Union of Good as a terrorist entity in 2008.

 

The Palestinian Return Centre (PRC) is another MB offshoot that operates throughout Europe from its base in Britain. Israel banned the PRC on December 27, 2010, because of its involvement “in initiating and organizing radical and violent activity against Israel in Europe, while de-legitimizing Israel's status as a nation among the European community. For example, in 2008, the PRC hosted its sixth Palestinians in Europe conference in Denmark’s capital Copenhagen, featuring a video address by Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, and appearances by Raid Salah, the head of the Islamic movement in Israel, and the former head of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Akram al-Adlouni.

 

The same Danish leadership that allowed the PRC conference is now prosecuting Lars Hedegaard, the President of the Danish Free Press Society and The International Free Press Society.

 

PRC co-founded the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza (ECESG), an entity established by MB’s European umbrella organizations, the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIO). ECESG helped coordinate the Gaza flotilla affair in 2010, which ended in some casualties and fatalities after members of another MB ‘humanitarian’ organization – Turkish Humanitarian Relief (IHH) -- attacked Israeli soldiers who boarded to prevent the boat from breaking the blockade around Gaza. Israel banned the IHH in 2008 for its links to Hamas and the Union of Good, and recently asked the United States to follow suit. The Obama Administration is taking its time.

 

Dr. Arafat Madi heads both PRC and ECESG, which share office space and a telephone number. PRC’s leadership reads like a who’s who of Hamas and MB membership, including Zaher Birawi. Birawi is the former chairman of the MB-linked Muslim Association of Britain, a trustee of a Union of Good’s member organization, Education Aid for Palestine (EAP), and the current spokesman for George Galloway’s Viva Palestina, among other associations; Ghassan Faour, associated with Interpal; and Majdi Akeel, who was identified as a Hamas activist in the Holy Land Foundation case. The list goes on.

 

In spite of these radical associations, the ECESG website lists numerous supporters among members of the UK government and elsewhere. In January 2010, ECESG arranged for a 50-person delegation of current and former MPs and politicians to travel to Gaza. The delegation met with Ismail Haniya, the head of Hamas’s so-called political wing in Gaza, John Ging, the Director of Operations for the UN Relief and Works Agency, and others. Last year, PRC and ECESG head Madi reportedly discussed Israel policy in Gaza with the President of the European Parliament.

International Influence

 

Britain’s willful blindness to the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive agenda, and its acquiescence to its vitriolic propaganda is not merely a local disease. The international tentacles of the MB assist the organization to infect other countries. Unfortunately the United States seems to follow in the footsteps of England, unwisely ignoring the growing influence of the MB in its borders.

 

Despite renewed attention in recent years on Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups operating in the U.S. radical Islamic organizations disguised as “mainstream Muslims” are now presenting their Islamic agenda to the government and appear on a regular basis in the media. These groups include the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Muslim American Society (MAS), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA).

 

CAIR’s terror ties have long been confirmed in numerous court cases, the most recent of which is the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) case of 2009, which exposed HLF as a Hamas fundraising front.

 

During the HLF trial, the FBI identified CAIR as part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian Committee, which was tasked with funneling financial support to Hamas, and obstructing prospective peace deals in the Middle East.  

 

The FBI also listed CAIR’s co-founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, as members of the MB Palestine Committee. Ahmad and Awad formerly headed another member organization of the Palestinian Committee, the Islamic Association for Palestine. Now defunct, IAP was shut down following a civil suit against it and other HAMAS fundraising entities by the family of an American teenager murdered by terrorists in the West Bank. Ahmad left CAIR leadership in 2005, with the title of “chairman emeritus,” but his biographical information is no longer available on CAIR’s website, as is Nihad Awad’s, one of CAIR’s founders and its current Executive Director.

 

At least 15 other CAIR officials have been identified in terror investigations, including Ghassan Elashi, also a founding member, who was involved in the HLF case.

 

Despite criminal ties, known connections to the American ‘Wahhabi lobby,” and blatant MB affiliations, CAIR continue to boasts its reputation as the preeminent Muslim civil rights group in the U.S. The group is linked with the highest level of government. For instance, in 1997, Awad was appointed by Vice President Al Gore as a member of the Civil Rights Advisory Panel to the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. According to CAIR’s website, he is also “a regular participant in the U.S. Department of State’s “International Visitors Program”, which welcomes foreign dignitaries, journalists and academics who are currently visiting the President of the United States.”

 

 

Like CAIR, ISNA, another unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case has been warmly embraced by the Obama Administration. ISNA President Ingrid Mattson has spoken at various White House functions, including the presidential inauguration, and was invited to join the White House Council on Women and Girls. In February 2010, another ISNA member, Eboo Patel, was appointed to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood partnerships.

 

ISNA has hosted multiple conferences at which speakers and released publications that supported jihad, terrorism and radical Islam, documented in a recent report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.  ISNA has been described as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes in the United States.” Among its many functions, this powerful group holds the deed to anywhere from 50% to 80% of the mostly Saudi funded mosques in the United States through its affiliate organization, NAIT.

 

ISNA was the primary endorser of imams assigned to federal prisons until the federal Bureau of Prisons suspended it in 2003, when the FBI conducted investigations unto ISNA’s terror ties. ISNA’s former chaplain-endorsing agent, Dr. Louay Safi, is affiliated with the terror-linked IIIT, an organization that has close ties with both Anwar and Qaradawi. Safi was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sami Al-Arian, who was convicted of fundraising for terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Safi was an instructor to Major Nidal Malik Hassan, at the Fort hood military base, where Hassan massacred 13 people on the in 2009, yelling “Allahu Akbar.” 

 

 Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

 

As of December 2010, ISNA was listed as one of the two organizations that vets Muslim chaplains in the American military.

 

And there’s more. ISNA is part of the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), another MB affiliated organization in the United States that included terror-tied groups such as CAIR, IIT, the Dar al Hijrah Mosque, and MPAC. According to Bigpeace.com, the Obama administration reportedly hosted a group from CCMO in 2010 in order to teach participant groups how to “cut through red tape” to “receive direct access” to “funding, government assistance and resources.” News of the financial workshop made the press not because the Obama Administration reported about it, as transparent government should have done,  but because an ISNA e-mail leaked.

 

The West’s response to Anwar and Qaradawi is par for the course in its approach to the MB’s rapidly growing and metastasizing tentacles. Despite the vast MB infrastructure in the U.S. and the UK, both countries are turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the growing incitement and activities of their homegrown Islamist organizations.

 

Qaradawi remains a worldwide media figure with access to students at some of the most prestigious American universities. In January 2009, Qatar’s mouthpiece Al Jazeera, aired one of many similar Qaradawi speeches in which he said:

 

“Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

 

Qaradawi concluded:

 

"The only thing I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah."

Qaradawi’s radical views did not deter Prominent British Labor party politician and former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone from welcoming Qaradawi into City Hall, in July 2004. Livingstone lavishly praised Qaradawi and compared his scholarly rank to “the position of Pope John XXIII.” Livingstone also opined that Qaradawi is “an absolutely sane Islamist.”

 

Qaradawi, who is Sunni, also defends Shiite Iran. In 2007, he stated that Muslims should mobilize internationally to “resist any possibly attack the US might launch against Iran. Iran is a Muslim country which all Muslims should defend while the US is an enemy of Islam that has already declared war on Islam under the disguise of war on terrorism…”

 

But such statements do not offend MB apologist John Esposito.  The director of Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, Esposito is also closely affiliated with Anwar Ibrahim, the Honorary President of the Center.  In 2006, Anwar was a Distinguished Visiting Professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.  

 

Esposito describes Qaradawi as a “moderate” who represents "a cross section of Muslim thinkers, religious leaders and mainstream Islamic movements from Egypt to Indonesia, Europe to America." Furthermore he praises Qaradawi for his "reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights."

 

Esposito’s ruthless laundry of Qaradawi’s anti-American and anti-Semitic views seems to work. A 2008 Foreign Policy Magazine poll ranked Qaradawi third on a list of the world’s top twenty public intellectuals.

 

On December 30, 2010, days before Sudan’s referendum on Southern Sudan’s secession, the “moderate” Qaradawi charged that the election was part of a Western plot orchestrated to weaken the Muslim world.

 

The well-oiled MB propaganda machine has succeeded in portraying the most radical, anti- American, anti-West and anti- Semitic Islamic organizations and leaders as “moderate” Muslims and reformers. How much longer can the West afford to ignore the Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts to replace Western democracy and capitalism with the oppression of the Islamic Caliphate?

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld  is the Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy. She is an expert on terrorism and corruption-related topics such as terror financing and narco-terrorism. She has helped to change New York state law, when the Libel Terrorism Protection Act (pdf) was passed. Similar laws have been passed in other U.S. states, and a federal law known as the SPEECH ACT which was signed by the president in August 2010, follows the same principle - that First Amendment guarantees should protect authors and publishers against foreign libel judgments from countries with poor free speech protections.

 

Part 2 & 3 were first published on Jan. 13th & 14th by Family Security Matters.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood Path to Victory: Part One (of Two)

January 12, 2011 

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

 

 

And the award for turning Islam into one of the fastest growing, most influential, and most intimidating religious movements in the world goes to… the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

 

The most recent victim of the global Islamic movement’s intimidation of free speech in Denmark is Lars Hedegaard, the President of the Danish Free Press Society and The International Free Press Society.

 

 

Lars Hedegaard

 

Denmark has been targeted by the MB after the 2006 publication of ‘Mohammed cartoons’ by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Following Sheikh Ali Al-Hudaify, imam of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina call "upon governments, organizations and scholars in the Islamic world to extend support for campaigns protesting the sacrilegious attacks on the Prophet,” the MB orchestrated mass riots in Denmark and across the world.

 

Responding to an interviewer question on Muslim “honor killings,” Mr. Hedegaard remarked, “They rape their own children.” He now stands accused by Denmark’s public prosecutor of “racism.”

 

Although Mr. Hedegaard further explained that he was not speaking about every single Muslim or even the majority, the prosecution is proceeding. His trial begins later this month.

 

The politically correct sensitivity of the Danish public prosecutor that led to Mr. Hedegaard’s prosecution and persecution seems to follow the cowardly public apology issued by the Danish daily Politiken on February 2010, for reprinting the cartoons in 2008. The newspaper’s mea culpa was obtained as part of the settlement with a Saudi lawyer representing 94,923 of Muhammad's descendants, who sued the paper for offending them.

 

Hedegaard’s legal troubles and Politiken’s cave-in are the casualties of the global propaganda offensive launched after 9/11, portraying the Muslims as victims of discrimination by Western societies. Led by the Muslim Brotherhood, this offensive drastically intensified after the publications of the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark and Sweden.

 

Ironically, while Europe is obstinately ignoring or kowtowing the growing power of radical Islam and the MB, State Department communications revealed by Wikileaks in November and December 2010 show that Arab leaders in the Middle East have voiced increasing alarm at the spread of the MB’s radical Islamic worldview is spreading.

 

A March 3, 2008 cable quoted Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali predicting an MB takeover in Egypt, where, he noted, the environment was “explosive.”  This view was confirmed in a February 23, 2010 cable quoting the Qatari Emir, Hamid bin Khalifa al Thani, telling U.S. Senator John Kerry, “Everyone knows that Egypt has a problem with the Muslim Brotherhood.” Another cable revealed an allegedly reluctant association between MB offshoot Hamas and Syrian President Bashar Assad. Calling the terrorist group an “uninvited guest,” Assad insisted that “to be effective and active,” he nonetheless had to “have a relationship with all parties. Hamas is Muslim Brotherhood, but we have to deal with the reality of their presence.”

 

The Muslim Brotherhood proudly touts these accomplishments on their official website, Ikhanweb.  

 

The Wikileaks cables show that MB’s long-advertised aspirations of global control are materializing, fueled by Saudi and Gulf petrodollars and influence, with the complicity and tacit approval of the West.

 

 

Sayyid Qutb

 

The MB describes itself as a political and social revolutionary movement; it was founded in March 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, who objected to Western influence and together with MB’s most influential ideologues Sayyid Qutb , called for return to the earliest days of Islam as a model for society. MB is an expansive and secretive society with followers in more than 70 countries, dedicated to creating a global Islamic order that would discriminate against women and punish nonbelievers. Its members and supporters founded and funded al Qaeda, Hamas, and other radical Muslim terror groups, as well as Muslim student organizations on six continents, including one “of the largest college student groups in the United States.”

 

The case of the Egyptian exiled Doha based, 85 year-old MB spiritual leader, Yusuf Qaradawi, amply demonstrates how a well-funded Islamist demagogue who openly calls for violence against Americans, Israelis, and Jews, has managed nonetheless to secure a reputation in the West as a moderate thinker.

 

A prolific writer, who for decades holds the directorship of Qatar University'sSeerah and Sunnah Centre, Qaradawi is hailed as one of the leading modern Islamic scholars. He is the founder of the International Union of Muslim Scholars and the European Council for Fatwa and Research, and was twice offered the leadership of the MB. He rejected the offers, explaining in 2004 that he could not commit to “any movement which might constrain my actions, even if this is the Muslim Brotherhood under whose umbrella I grew and which I so defended.” In 2006 he clarified that the although the MB consider him  “their Mufti” but that he “prefer[ed] to be devoted to the entire nation.” Qaradawi was banned from entering the U.S. in 1999.

 

Adhering to the MB ideology, which calls on the Muslims to rid themselves of non-Islamic rule, Qaradawi has advocated suicide bombing as “martyrdom in the name of God,” and the killing of American and coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2004, he issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from buying or even advertising American or Israeli products. Qaradawi issues many fatwas on his popular website www.qaradawi.net; on another website he helped found in 1997, IslamOnline, as well as on his al Jazeera prime-time television program, ash-Shariah wal-Hayat, “Shariah and Life,” allegedly reaching 40 million viewers. Wikileaks cables confirmed that Qatar uses the Doha-based al Jazeera as “a useful tool” to advance its political agenda.

Another recent example of the Qaradawi-Qatari partnership to increase Islamic influence and expand its reach is found in the Qatar Foundation’s Education City, a multi-billion mega-complex housing a combination of Qatari and prestigious American institutions.

 

 

Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani

 

The Qatar Foundation was established by Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar in 1995, and is currently headed by his wife, Shikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned. American universities lured to Qatar by massive financial incentives include Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Texas A&M, Georgetown, Virginia Commonwealth, and Cornell. For instance, the Qatar Foundation covers the costs of A&M at Education City, and pledged $750 million to the branch of Cornell’s medical college. Qatar continues its effort to attract additional prominent American and European academic institutions.

 

Education City is now home to the Qaradawi Center for Islamic Moderation and Renewal, an Islamic Studies think tank whose establishment is aimed to “highlight the middle path propagated by Qaradawi.” In the 2009/2010 academic year the Qatar Foundation awarded five graduate scholarships in Qaradawi’s name for applicants studying Islamic Studies with a specialty in Contemporary Fiqh (Islamic Law). In 2009, Qaradawi was on a roster of prominent Middle Easter figures who lectured to American students participating in “Journalism Boot Camp,” a program affiliated with Columbia University, the University of Qatar, and the American University of Cairo.

 

Clearly, Qaradawi’s ubiquitous presence in Qatar and its rapidly growing Education City, is not dissuading American institutions of higher learning from exposing American students to Qaradawi’s poisonous influence.

 

Qatar’s substantial financial and ideological support for Qaradawi, helps to promote the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda. In February 2009, Qaradawi thanked Qatar “for having accepted me and allowed me to do my work on an international scale. I have never faced any obstacle in expressing freely whatever I wished.”

 

Qatari money and academic ties provide but one of many means for the spread of Muslim Brotherhood influence, which is becoming pervasive in the Western world, which allows the burgeoning network of Islamic organizations and charities to operate.

 

In order to understand the scope of MB operations in the West, one must first understand the organization’s long-term planning and methods to secure their growth. MB’s founder Hassan al-Banna, understood that financial strength was critical for the organization’s success, weapon to undermine the infidels — and “work towards establishing an Islamic rule on earth.”

 

After the 1973 successful use of Middle East oil as a weapon against the West, rising oil revenues encouraged MB leaders to formalize al-Banna's vision. In 1977 and 1982, they convened in Lugano, Switzerland, to chart a master plan to co-opt Western economic “foundations, capitalism and democracy” in a treatise entitled “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy,” also known as The Project. MB spiritual leader al-Qaradawi wrote the explicit document, dated 1 December 1982.The 12-point strategy includes diktats to establish the Islamic state and gradual, parallel work to control local power centers . . . using institutional work as means to this end. To achieve all these to spread fundamentalist Islam required “special Islamic economic, social and other institutions,” and “the necessary economic institutions to provide financial support.”

 

 

Anwar Ibrahim

 

But Islamic banking was slow to catch on until 1993, when Anwar Ibrahim—then Malaysia’s finance minister, and current opposition leader—helped to introduce the newly invented “Islamic Banking windows” into conventional banks. This measure helped familiarized potential customers with and built confidence in the unknown Islamic banking system. Indeed, it proved central to the development of the global Islamic finance industry. Anwar constant support and advocacy of Islamic rule led Qaradawi, his friend and business partner, to join the list of prominent Western leaders who publically defend the Malay politician, who is on trial for sodomy and corruption charges, which he denies.

 

 Anwar and Qaradawi share substantial business ties: in 1996, Anwar licensed company headed by Qaradawi and transferred it to Malaysia. The company, Majestic Global Investment is Kuwaiti fund management business. Both Anwar and Qaradawi serve on the board of the MB affiliated, Virginia based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), which Anwar helped to found.

 

The IIIT, which has been under extended federal investigation for ties to al Qaeda and Hamas, advertises two of Qaradawi’s books, and has published literature describing the hurdles it faces in its planned takeover of the U.S. and Canada.

 

Qaradawi and Anwar share ties to Oxford University. Qaradawi is a trustee of the university’s Center for Islamic Studies, while Anwar was a lecturer at Oxford’s St. Antony’s College.

 

Another Western media darling, Tariq Ramadan, who is prominent advocate of the MB agenda, found a permanent house at Oxford’s St. Antony’s College. Ramadan, Hassan al Banna’s grandson, was banned from entering the U.S. until January 19, 2010, when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, issued an executive order allowing his entry to the country. Clinton who pressured the Malaysian government on behalf of Anwar, considers him a reformer and an exemplary moderate Muslim.

 

 One can only wonder why despite the readily available damning information and renewed attention on the MB and its affiliated groups the U.S. as its allies are laying the welcoming carpet to some of the most effective MB actors.

 

First published in FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld  is the Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy. She is an expert on terrorism and corruption-related topics such as terror financing and narco-terrorism. She has helped to change New York state law, when the Libel Terrorism Protection Act (pdf) was passed. Similar laws have been passed in other U.S. states, and a federal law known as the SPEECH ACT which was signed by the president in August 2010, follows the same principle - that First Amendment guarantees should protect authors and publishers against foreign libel judgments from countries with poor free speech protections.

 

Obama's Southern Sudan Policy

January 06, 2011

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

Southern Sudan's mostly Christian population has been under genocidal attack from the Islamist-dominated North. Wikileaks has shed new light on the Obama administration's diplomatic activities on this crisis.

According to Wikileaks cables, in December 2009, the U.S. warned Sudan to stop transshipments of Iranian arms to Hamas in Gaza for use against Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The cables however, did not discuss that Sudan was also transferring Iranian arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill American and coalition forces.

Other Sudan related Wikileaks-released cables from the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, reported that in 2009, the Obama Administration threatened Kenya with "sweeping sanctions" if it delivered the shipload of weapons, including 32 tanks that were recovered from Somali pirates, to their rightful owner, the Southern Sudanese government. The tanks remained in Kenya. This new policy contravened the Bush Administration's 2008 plan to convert the Southern Sudanese People's Liberation Army from a guerrilla outfit to a small conventional army capable of defending Juba, the capital of the South.

Nonetheless, the Obama Administration continued the efforts to make Southern Sudan a viable state. On December 20^th, the White House declared that it had "intense interest in having a successful referendum." The decision to stop the arms shipment and the tanks from reaching the Southern Sudanese so they could defend themselves from the heavily armed Northern Sudanese army, raises the question, who in Washington sets the U.S. policy towards Sudan?

Southern Sudan, a mostly Christian region, could soon gain its independence from the U.S. terrorist designated Islamic Republic of Sudan and its ruler the internationally indicted and wanted war criminal, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

The Obama Administration's concessions to Bashir made possible the independence referendum scheduled on Jan. 9, that would lead to Southern Sudan's independence in July 2011. Publically, the concessions include the removal of Sudan from the U.S. list of terrorism-sponsoring states, ending the sanctions against the country, and allowing negotiations for economic assistance, including debt relief.  The Administration first announced this development in June 2010.

It is unclear what guarantees were given to Bashir, who in July 2008 was charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, and has two international arrest warrants against him. Moreover, according to a Wikileaks-released State Department cable, in March 2009, ICC chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, informed the U.S. that Bashir stashed "possibly $9 billion" in banks outside Sudan.

If the past is any indication, reading The New York Times (NYT) gives the impression that Bashir will likely be celebrated as a reformer by the Obama Administration.  On July 13, 2010, The NYT updated its "people" information with the following: "Mr. Bashir has been vilified ....[and]  suspected of war crimes... [and] often perceived as a villain in the West" (emphasis added). But, Mr. Bashir, according to the NYT, enjoys "strong support from voters in northern Sudan" because under his leadership Sudan's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) "has nearly tripled."  However, The NYT did not mention that the northern Sudanese  "voters" are Muslims cowed by the military dictatorship, and that the new Sudanese wealth comes from oil exports, from which Bashir has pocketed some $9 billion.

Bashir will not be the first murderer and thief to benefit by promising peace to an American Administration. Yasser Arafat, an internationally wanted terrorist for decades, who ordered the killing of American diplomats and who incredibly stashed away more than $10 billion, (part of which was international aid money to the Palestinian refugees) received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, just because he promised "peace." Is Bashir next?

Last week, in its end of the year report, Israel's Security Agency detailed Sudan's on-going facilitation of transshipment of Iranian weapons to Hamas. Clearly, the 2009 U.S. warning failed to deter the Sudanese government. Days before the referendum, there are two unknowns: will Bashir accept the results, and judging by the Obama Administration's shifting policies regarding Sudan, how will the U.S. react if Bashir rejects the results? Stay tuned. 

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the NY based American Center for Democracy, and author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It.

 

Obama's Israel Policy

by Rachel Ehrenfeld Jan 5th 2011 

 The United States’ withdrawal of its demand that Israel impose a second construction freeze in order to bring the Palestinian Authority (PA) back to the negotiation table does not necessarily indicate that the Obama Administration now sides with Israel. Moreover, America’s latest move will likely result in the Administration’s abstaining from a vote on a much-rumored possible U.N. Security Council resolution recognizing the unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

The U.S. House of Representatives’ resolution last month urged the Administration to “deny any unilaterally declared Palestinian state” and “veto any resolution by the United Nations Security Council to establish or recognize a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated by the two parties.” However, this resolution is unlikely to stop the Administration from either supporting or abstaining from a vote on a Palestinian initiated resolution “declaring ongoing Jewish settlement in the West Bank a big obstacle to ending the conflict.”

America’s withdrawing the demand that Israel freezes building in “disputed territories,” also means that the Obama Administration will not sell $3 billion worth of 20 radar-evading F-35 fighter jets to Israel. This will weaken the Jewish State’s ability to defend itself. Further destabilizing the region, and diminishing Israel’s military edge, is the U.S. sale of $97 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

While the U.S. is considering its next step, the European Union is inching closer to recognizing a Palestinian state. “We welcome the World Bank’s assessment that “if the Palestinian Authority maintains its current performance in institution building and public services, it is well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.”" The December 13, 2010, 3058th meeting of the European Union Foreign Affairs Council concluded: “The EU recalls that peace in the Middle East should be comprehensive and reiterates the importance of negotiations on the Israel-Syria and Israel-Lebanon tracks. Incredibly, the Council also stated: “Peace should lead to the full integration of Israel in its regional environment (emphasis added) along the lines set out in the Arab Peace Initiative,” clearly ignoring Israel’s unique identity, its raison d’être as the Jewish State.

Another sign of Obama’s Administration growing distance from Israel is the U.S. silence in the face of mounting South American support for a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian independent state.

Over the course of December 2010, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Ecuador – eagerly recognized an independent Palestinian state. Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay will reportedly be the next to join their neighbors in recognizing the PA as an independent state. Rather than lobbying South American regimes to withhold or retract recognition, the U.S. has only criticized the moves as counterproductive to a negotiated peace between Israel and the PA.

This South American initiative emerged following  the July 2010  State Department’s upgrade of the Washington DC Palestinian Liberation Organization’s mission status, a move that allows the PLO office to fly the Palestinian flag.

While the EU declined to recognize a Palestinian state outright in December, several member states– France, Spain, Portugal and Norway – have upgraded the status of PLO representation in their countries, as have Canada.  Britain was considering a similar move at the end of December.

Remarkably, neither the EU Council, nor the South American countries have discussed the Gaza Strip, which is included in the ‘67 borders, though the terrorist group Hamas rules it. Meanwhile Hamas is gaining strength in the PA controlled West Bank.

Hamas major arms supplier is Iran. The arms are transited through Sudan and the Egyptian controlled Sinai Peninsula. Last summer, the U.S. warned Sudan to stop the Iranian arms transfer to Hamas, but the arms continue to flow.

At the same time, both the PA and Hamas continue to call for the eradication of Israel. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas continue to present maps of “Palestine” that make no mention of Israel, while Hamas leaders continue to insist: “We retain our Islamic, Arab and Palestinian faith that Palestine will be returned to its inhabitants and Zionist existence will conclude….The Jews will have no right there, save for those who lived on Palestinian land prior to the First World War.” But such expressions to not seem to discourage the Administration from deploying former diplomats to hold discussions with Hamas.

It is unknown whether the Administration’s behavior towards Israel is influenced by Obama’s inaugural promise to the Muslim world: “we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest…” However, recent developments should raise grave concerns in Israel and among its friends and all freedom loving Americans.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the NY based American Center for Democracy, and author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It.

This article was first published by Big Peace