Tag Archives: Reza Aslan

Muslim Brotherhood Operatives Have Infiltrated America’s Political, Cultural Institutions to Conquer Us from Within

by Dave Swindle

For season 2 of the 13 Weeks Radical Reading Regimen, each weekday I juxtapose excerpts from my book readings with a selection of the previous day’s headlines and noteworthy excerpts. The goal is to make fresh connections between the events of the day and the bigger picture of history and humanity’s place in the universe.

In yesterday’s collection of the weekend’s headlines and excerpts, I announced my plan to begin opening each of these weekday link round-ups by highlighting one of my favorite writers and explaining how one of their key ideas could be used to better understand the day’s events. I opened this series with the intent of naming the five men and one women — all PJ columnists — who have most shaped my foreign policy views. I began by proclaiming my appreciation for PJ columnist Michael Ledeen and his books. To understand Monday’s headlines, I invite others to consider The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America by Andrew C. McCarthy – excerpted below — and also his PJ Media Ordered Liberty blog and National Review archive. McCarthy is one of today’s most important advocates for a strong, focused national security policy that recognizes and defeats America’s enemies.


Back in November, I included The Grand Jihad in my list of the “The 15 Best Books for Understanding Barack Obama’s Mysterious Political Theology.” The book is particularly valuable for understanding a vital reality that the majority of people across the political spectrum either know nothing about or work very hard to ignore: for decades the Muslim Brotherhood has worked very hard developing front groups which train operatives for the purpose of subverting America and someday conquering us from within. These activists pretend to be moderates but actually work to advance the interests of Islamic supremacists who seek to implement Sharia. They intentionally obfuscate their real views. So far it’s been working very well.

McCarthy is one of the most incisive and credible analysts of this phenomenon. He is unique amongst other writers on Islam in that he is a former federal prosecutor, responsible for convicting the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. He’s not someone who can be dismissed as promulgating “crazy conspiracy theories” like the Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein recently attempted. There really are criminal conspiracies and they’ve been convicted in court. Want documentary proof that the Muslim Brotherhood created the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for the purpose of duping people into supporting Muslim supremacists? This document recovered from the Brotherhood — “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America” — was entered into evidence by the FBI during the Holy Land Foundation trial. It’s a good place to start and an important piece of evidence that McCarthy explains. Here’s the excerpt from which the title of the book emerged:


This isn’t conspiracy mongering. It’s a well-established historical fact that during the Cold War the Soviet Union funded spies and subversive cultural groups to try to destroy America from within. Today’s Islamist groups draw from this tradition. The various strains of Islamism we see today across the Middle East from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Saudi Kingdom to the Iranian mullahs all infuse orthodox Islam with aspects of Marxism and fascism. (Hence one of the reasons why I choose to use the term “Islamism” much to the consternation of some of my more hardline counter-Jihad colleagues. An “Islamist” is someone who uses modern day political methods — violent or nonviolent — in order to establish an Orthodox Islamic state that runs according to Sharia law. The Islam of Mohammed’s age is the goal, but modern tools from modern weapons to postmodern ideology are the means.)

Having come to understand the criminal techniques utilized throughout the 20th century, we can see them implemented today. Consider the subject of Robert Spencer’s monday PJ Lifestyle article: Why Reza Aslan’s Christian Relatives and Friends Aren’t Trying to Kill Him.

With the understanding in mind that America’s totalitarian foreign enemies have throughout history sought to disrupt the foundations of America’s cultural values, we can begin to connect the dots:

Fact 1: Reza Aslan is an advisory board member of the National Iranian American Council, an unofficial lobbying organization and apologist for the current terrorist-sponsoring regime.

Fact 2: Aslan has advocated for the U.S. to negotiate with both Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah

Fact 3: Aslan is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. He wrote that “the Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing” and has spoken regularly at events sponsored by the MSA and CAIR.

Fact 4: Aslan, an ex-Christian who returned to Islam, claims that Jesus of Nazareth was an illiterate, revolutionary zealot and that the gospels are all distortions of who Jesus really was. In Aslan’s telling, Jesus is reminiscent of Mohammed. Where have we heard this before? Aslan agrees with the dominant Muslim interpretation of the Koran, which claims that the Jewish Torah and Christian gospels are perversions of what Moses and Jesus actually taught. His evidence for an illiterate Jesus? This interview from the Wall Street Journal demonstrates Aslan’s preferred creative writing method of historical analysis — stereotyping — and then his outright dismissal of the importance of the individual:

In the book you say that Jesus was “very likely” illiterate, and there’s “no reason to think” he could read or write. But a lot of Biblical scholars disagree. In Luke 4:16, we see Jesus reading. [“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.”] So where do you get that from, saying Jesus is illiterate when in the Bible he is seen reading?

Well, first of all, it may sound shocking to some people, but just because the gospels say something doesn’t mean it’s actually factual. The Gospel of Luke was written 60-70 years after Jesus had died, when Christianity was quintessentially a Roman religion and no longer a Jewish religion and the gospel writers were very interested in making Jesus someone who would appeal to a non-Jewish audience. But the facts of history speak for themselves. And I would say the vast majority of Biblical scholars would agree that the illiteracy rates in Jesus’s world were somewhere around 98 percent. 98 percent of Jesus’s fellow Jews could neither read nor write. The notion that a tekton, as Jesus is referred to in the Bible, a woodworker, which would make him the second-lowest rung on the social ladder in his time just above the slave and the indigent and the beggar, the notion that he would have had any sort of formal education, let alone the kind of education necessary to debate theological points with the scribes and the Pharisees, is difficult  to reconcile with what we know of the history of the time.

But examining the broad sweep of historical trends of a particular time doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about an individual person.

It tells you everything about an individual.

This ideology — that believes “historical trends” are more important than the individual — is the perpetual enemy of America, constantly returning with new masks. We have beaten it many times throughout our history and we will defeat it again.


Another pro-jihad free speech assault, another petition

Nathan Lean is the editor-in-chief of Aslan Media, an organization run by Reza Aslan, a board member of NIAC, a proven front group for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Lean is also an obsessive stalker who relentlessly scans the Internet for details about my resume and my wife and children, which he then enthusiastically publishes in hopes that I will be discredited, endangered, and intimidated into silence. Well, as far as intimidating me goes, it won’t work, and it will never work, but this creepy bottom feeder does keep me busy answering his libels in publications around the country.

The monomaniacal Lean has made it his business to try to get me canceled everywhere I’ve been invited to speak. The latest outlet for Lean’s obsession is the Napa Valley Register, as I am scheduled to speak on classical education (not Islam at all) at a conference sponsored by Napa’s Kolbe Academy in late July.

The stalker published this tissue of falsehood and distortions in the Register yesterday, “Kolbe should rescind invitation to contoversial [sic] speaker,” and today I followed up in the Register with the facts:

Kolbe Academy should be standing for free speechNathan Lean’s piece attacking me in the June 25 Napa Valley Register (“Kolbe should rescind invitation to controversial speaker”) is at least the fifth such op-ed Lean has written solely devoted to defaming me and spreading falsehoods about my record, activities and beliefs.

Lean, well aware of the many death threats I have received from Islamic jihadists, has published, on the Internet, information he believes to be about my location and my family with the clear intent of endangering me and my family and intimidating me into silence. The FBI is aware of these veiled threats from Mr. Lean.

The editors of the Register, of course, had no way of knowing that they were publishing the rantings of an obsessive and threatening stalker; however, now that he has spread his misinformation, I am grateful that they have given me the opportunity to set the record straight.

Lean claims that “civil rights organizations” have labeled me a “hate group leader.” In my own defense, I must also note that far from being an actual “hate group leader,” I have instructed the FBI, CIA, and U.S. military on Islam and jihad. It is noteworthy that he doesn’t name the “civil rights organization” in question — probably because he knows it would weaken his case.

The organization he is referring to is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has come under strong criticism in recent years for irresponsibly labeling as “hate groups” many organizations that simply disagree with its extreme political stances. It is also telling that the SPLC doesn’t classify any Islamic jihad groups as hate groups, despite their poisonous rhetoric calling for the mass murder of Americans.

Lean also claims that the Norway terrorist Anders Breivik cited my writings, without mentioning that Breivik cited many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson.

Lean tries to mislead readers into thinking that Breivik was inspired to kill by my writings against jihad terror, but Breivik was not actually an opponent of jihad terror: he wrote about he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups. Breivik also explained that his real inspiration for his violence was not us, but the Islamic jihad terror group al-Qaida, about which Nathan Lean has never written a critical word.

Nor does Lean mention that we are appealing the rejection of our trademark application for Stop Islamization of America. It is ironic that while large numbers of valiant secularist Turks and Egyptians are resisting the Islamization of their countries, that Lean would smear as bigoted an attempt to preserve American freedoms from subversion by provisions of Islamic law that even many Muslims reject as oppressive.

Lean criticizes my work exposing what he calls “the supposed threat of radical Muslims in the United States.” It is odd in the extreme that anyone would write about a “supposed threat” in the wake of the Boston Marathon jihad bombings, as well as the Fort Hood jihad massacre and the many foiled jihad plots around the nation in recent years.

It becomes more understandable when one notes that Lean is an employee of Aslan Media, an organization headed by Reza Aslan, a board member of what a federal court has determined to be a front group for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Meanwhile, Lean claims that a board member of our organization once “recommended burning all mosques and sending Muslim immigrants ‘back to their countries,’” trying to give the impression that these are positions of our organization. They are not, and no board member has advocated such positions.

“Spencer has argued that there is no distinction between American Muslims and radical, violent jihadists”: This is sheer misrepresentation. What I actually said was that U.S. Muslim organizations have been slow to expel violent jihadists or report their activities. They move freely among peaceful Muslims.

The Tsarnaev brothers, who supposedly bombed the Boston Marathon finish line, were members in good standing of the Islamic Society of Boston. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s most vocal Muslim organization, has counseled Muslims in the U.S. not to speak to the FBI.

Lean claims that our ads “equated Muslims with savages.” In reality, the ad said, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” The savages to which we were referring, obviously, were those jihadists who have massacred innocent Israeli civilians and celebrated those massacres.

Is Lean suggesting that all Muslims support those massacres? If so, it is he, not our ads or organization, who is presenting “violent acts of notorious terrorists like Osama bin Laden as normative of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims.” In reality, we have never done such a thing.

Lean wants the Santa Rosa diocese to rescind my invitation to speak, saying it should “follow the actions of the Boston diocese, which rescinded Spencer’s invitation to speak at a men’s conference in Massachusetts in March.”

Actually, it was the diocese of Worcester, Mass., following a demand made by a local Muslim leader named Abdul Cader Asmal, a man who is a vocal and open supporter and friend of convicted al-Qaida terrorist Tarek Mehanna. This is the lead Nathan Lean wants the bishop of Santa Rosa to follow.

It is ironic that, throughout Lean’s vicious attack piece, he speaks repeatedly of “hate speech,” when it is he who is spreading hatred, falsehood and defamation in his weirdly personal ongoing obsession with my activities.

My work is dedicated to defending the equality of rights of all people before the law and, above all, the freedom of speech. I hope that Kolbe Academy and the diocese of Santa Rosa will not bow to the tactics of an enabler of jihad terror like Nathan Lean, and stand firm in defending that most fundamental of freedoms.

It’s actually the Roman Catholic bishop of Sacramento, not Santa Rosa, who has the veto power over this one. And the problem, as ever, is that authorities generally don’t want controversy, and so fascist foes of free speech like Lean know that if they kick up a controversy of any kind, they can get what they want: the demonization of opponents of jihad terror, so that jihad terror can proceed unimpeded. The only thing to do in the face of this is to make it clear that it will be just as controversial or more so to cancel and side with the jihad enablers as it would be to proceed. And so Jihad Watch reader Bernie, who kindly set up the petition asking the Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts not to cave to pressure from Islamic supremacists to cancel my talk — which got over 3,000 signatures — has set up another, making an appeal to the Roman Catholic bishop of Sacramento, Jaime Soto:

We respectfully request that Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento allow Robert Spencer to speak at the Kolbe Academy conference. We ask that Bishop Soto recognize that Nathan Lean’s charges against Robert Spencer are false and defamatory, and/or motivated by personal animus and political differences. We are alarmed that Bishop Soto would consider in effect enabling and abetting the silencing of a voice that speaks up for justice, our freedoms and for the persecuted Christians in Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world. It would also be extremely odd for Bishop Soto to cancel Mr. Spencer’s talk on classical education because Lean objects to Spencer’s work resisting jihad terror, an entirely unrelated topic. Bishop Soto as a leader of the church should stand up against calumny and intimidation. Let Robert Spencer speak.

Please stand for the freedom of speech and the legitimacy of resistance to jihad terror, and sign it here.

Morocco: Muslim cleric condemns violence in Islam’s name, is declared an apostate and threatened with death

From modern, moderate Morocco comes yet another example of why we don’t see more sincere Muslim reformers. Ahmed Assid said: “To call [upon people] to follow Islam by the use of violence and constraint is an act of terrorism.” For that, he has been condemned, declared a non-Muslim, and threatened with death.

Now wait a minute. We’re constantly told that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemn violence and terror and abhor the violence done in Islam’s name. So why isn’t Ahmed Assid celebrated as a hero, instead of fearing for his life?

Front of the Quran

Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: Morocco: Comments About Islam Spark Firestorm,” by Mohamed Saadouni for Magharebia, May 7 (thanks to Twostellas):

Casablanca — Moroccan activist Ahmed Assid has unleashed a torrent of criticism, including a takfir fatwa from a leading salafist preacher, for making controversial comments about Islam.

During a three-day seminar at the 10th national congress of the Moroccan Association of Human Rights (AMDH) in Rabat, which ended on April 21st, Assid suggested that religious school textbooks lured youths to violence.

To call [upon people] to follow Islam by the use of violence and constraint is an act of terrorism,” he said.

Assid should be sued for insulting the prophet and ridiculing Islam, salafist preacher Sheikh Mohammed Fizazi said during a lecture at Ibn Tofail University in Kenitra.

Yet the strongest reaction came from Sheikh Hassan Kettani, who accused Assid of kufr. In describing him as a “criminal” and “enemy of God”, Kettani issued a call for “silencing his voice”.

In a statement posted on Facebook, Kettani said that Assid had “crossed all lines in provoking Moroccans in particular and the ummah of Islam in general by deliberately insulting and desecrating each and every one of their sanctities”.

“In his impudence, he [Assid] went as far as to claim that the Quran contains no eloquence, ridiculing and underestimating the language of Quran,” Kettani’s statement went on.

By this Kettani apparently means that the Qur’an teaches violence, and so Assid is ridiculing the Qur’an by rejecting violence.

Assid later defended his comments.

“The thing that attracts attention is the violent, uncivilised nature of this campaign that lacks the simplest values of dialogue and right to different opinions, and thus seeks to consolidate a culture that we don’t need here in Morocco, that is the culture of confiscation, of trial, incitement and threats, et cetera,” Assid told Magharebia.

“These are very negative matters that we as viable forces believing in democracy have to fight,” he said. “There will always be differences, but we nevertheless must continue to engage in dialogue, debates and rapprochement,”

He said his words at the AMDH seminar were distorted and taken out of context.

“The words of anyone may not be construed so as to destroy him and incite others against him in such a serious manner,” Assid said. ” We have to refute arguments with arguments, which is the best option for the Moroccan experience.”…

Refute arguments with arguments? I have never known an Islamic supremacist to do that. From Reza Aslan to Omid Safi to Haroon Moghul to Caner K. Dagli and all the rest of them, Islamic supremacists content themselves with smearing and insulting those whom they fear and hate. They never deal with pro-freedom advocates’ arguments.


Posted by Robert