The Muslim Students Association and the Jihad Network Undermining the United States on college campuses.

The Muslim Students Association and the Jihad Network

By FrontPage Magazine | 3/31/2008

The following essay, adapted from the Introduction to this booklet, shows how, as early as the 1980s, operatives from the Muslim Brotherhood, parent group for al Qaeda and Hamas, formulated a blueprint for a “jihadist process” that would ultimately sabotage the “miserable house” of the United States. These Muslim Brotherhood operatives saw that the work of undermining the U.S. could be best accomplished by the use of front groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Association. But while CAIR was designed to work in the legal-cultural realm, posturing as another of the minority rights groups functioning in the public square, the MSA’s role was to be restricted to college campuses, where it would advance the cause of radical Islam and lead the effort to stigmatize Israel. Over the next several days, Front Page will publish profiles of individual chapters of the MSA on a variety of campuses around the country, showing how specifically they achieve the broad goals of the organization. – The Editors As revealed in documents seized by the FBI and entered as evidence in a Texas court, the Muslim Students Association is a legacy project of the Muslim Brotherhood.[1] The Brotherhood is an organization formed by a Hitler-admiring Muslim named Hasan al-Bannain Egypt in 1928.[2] It was designed to function as the spearpoint of the Islamo-fascist movement and its crusade against the West. The Brotherhood spawned al-Qaeda and Hamas.[3] Its doctrines make up the core of the terrorist jihad conducted by organizations such as Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas and the government of Iran.[4] Its agendas have been clear since its creation: infiltration, subversion and global terror with world conquest as the goal. …To establish one Islamic state of united Islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of Allah…and the strengthening of the Islamic presence in the world arena….The goal…is the establishment of a world Islamic state.[5] The first target was the “near enemy” – the Arab states that al-Banna and his followers felt had betrayed Islam. The United States – the “far enemy” – would not become a specific focus of the Brotherhood until many years later. The organization’s aspirations for world dominion seemed like a fantasy until the Iranian revolution of 1979. But that event showed the jihadists that they could conquer and govern a state and use it as a base for Islamic revolution elsewhere. There was no doubt who the enemy was. The Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeni coined the phrase “Great Satan” and “Little Satan” to demonize the United States and Israel and mark them for destruction. “Destroying Western Civilization From Within” A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution, in 1982.[6]. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum written by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood. “The process of settlement” of Muslims in America, Akram explained, “is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process.’” This means that members of the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”[7] This memo surfaced in a Texas courtroom in the fall of 2007 after prosecutors introduced it as evidence in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, once the largest Islamic charity in the United States.[8] The HLF was charged with funneling charitable donations to the jihad terrorists of the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, a Brotherhood organization that now controls the Gaza Strip. But the implications of this document go far beyond the Holy Land Foundation. It is actually a blueprint for the subversion of American society, and the eventual imposition of Islamic law in the United States. This would mean an institutionalized oppression of women, homosexuals, and religious minorities; the end of freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience; and the replacement of democracy by theocracy. U.S. authorities had been keeping an eye on Brotherhood operatives even before the memo surfaced. In 2001, U.S. officials accused Youssef Nada, a member of the organization, of funding terrorism.[9] Two years later, American investigators described Soliman Biheiri, a businessman in Virginia, as the Brotherhood’s U.S. “financial toehold.” Surveying the Islamic organizations that existed in the U.S. in 1991, Mohamed Akram declared in his memo: “The big challenge that is ahead of us is how to turn these seeds or ‘scattered’ elements into comprehensive, stable, ‘settled’ organizations that are connected with our Movement and which fly in our orbit and take orders from our guidance.” At the end of the document, Akram provided “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends” – apparently, those whom he believed were likewise dedicated to this great project of sabotaging the “miserable house” of American society. Surveying all these groups filled him with enthusiasm: “Imagine if they all march according to one plan!!!”[10] Akram contemplated a network of many overlapping groups, with personnel that move from one to the other and hold positions in different organizations simultaneously—an arrangement that resembles the Communist Party’s creation of interlocking front groups during the Cold War and complicates the task of understanding and tracking the pattern of their activities. The organizations Akram saw as advancing the Islamo-Fascist movement in America included, among many others, the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, the Islamic Circle of North America, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, and the Islamic Association for Palestine – from which came the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) three years later. But perhaps the most important of these groups in terms of the long term infiltration and conquest the Brotherhood envisioned was The Muslim Students Association (MSA). The Stealth Jihad of the MSA Established in January 1963 at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada, or MSA (also known as MSA National) currently has chapters on nearly 600 college campuses across North America.)[11] The relationship between MSA National and the individual university chapters is not a fixed hierarchy, but rather a loose connection. Thus the policies and views of the national organization may differ from those of some of the local chapters.) Stating that its mission is “to serve the best interest of Islam and Muslims in the United States and Canada so as to enable them to practice Islam as a complete way of life,”MSA is by far the most influential Islamic student organization in North America.[12] Founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, MSA was named in Mohammed Akram’s 1991 memorandum as one of the Brotherhood’s likeminded “organizations of our friends” who shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These “friends” were described by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims “that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion Islam is made victorious over all other religions.”[13] From its inception, MSA had close links with the extremist Muslim World League, whose chapters’ websites have featured not only Osama bin Laden’s propaganda, but also publicity-recruiting campaigns for Wahhabi involvement with the Chechen insurgents in Russia. According to author and Islam expert Stephen Schwartz, MSA is a key lobbying organization for the Wahhabi sect of Islam.[14] MSA solicited donations for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, whose assets the U.S. government seized in December 2001 because that organization was giving financial support to the terrorist group Hamas. MSA also has strong ties to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth.[15] Charging that U.S. foreign policy is driven by militaristic imperialism, MSA steadfastly opposes the American military incursions into both Afghanistan and Iraq.[16] The organization also follows the Arab propaganda line in the Middle East conflict and has condemned the anti-terrorist security fence that Israel has built in the West Bank as an illegal “apartheid wall” that violates the civil and human rights of Palestinians. An influential member of the International ANSWER steering committee, MSA maintains a large presence at ANSWER-sponsored anti-war demonstrations.[17] The pro-North Korea, pro-Saddam Hussein ANSWER is a front organization of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party.[18] Local chapters of MSA signed a February 20, 2002 document, composed by the radical group Refuse & Resist (a creation of the Revolutionary Communist Party’s) condemning military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations.[19] The document read, in part: “They the U.S. government are coming for the Arab, Muslim and South Asian immigrants. … The recent ‘disappearances,’ indefinite detention, the round-ups, the secret military tribunals, the denial of legal representation, evidence kept a secret from the accused, the denial of any due process for Arab, Muslim, South Asians and others, have chilling similarities to a police state.”[20] MSA has strongly opposed the Patriot Act, which it describes as an “infamous” piece of legislation. The organization’s chapters across the United States have similarly denounced virtually every other national security initiative implemented by the U.S. government since the 9/11 attacks. MSA chose not to endorse or participate in the May 14, 2005 “Free Muslims March Against Terror,” an event whose stated purpose was to “send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered … and to send a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them.”[21] But while it is possible to understand its political orientation from some of the positions it has taken on large national issues, the Muslim Students Association comes into sharper focus in the actions of the individual chapters that do its work every day on campuses across America. The following analysis of 18 separate campus chapters of MSA will make this clear.

The Coming Urban Terror

Lawmakers react, one suggests sheik leave Australia after blaming unveiled women for rape —-“It’s time we stopped just saying he should apologise. It is time the Islamic community did more then say they were horrified. I think it is time he left,” Ms Goward said. — “I have a message for Sheik Alhilali: This is Australia, not Iran, and violence and degradation of women is not acceptable,” she said.

Lawmakers react, one suggests sheik leave Australia after blaming unveiled women for rape

Anti-dhimmitude from Australia’s Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward. “Sheik’s sexist comments create storm,” an update on this story from AAP:

Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward believes the comments are an incitement to crime.

“Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court, can quote this man … their leader in court,” she told the Nine Network.

She wants him to go, but did not make clear whether she wanted to him to leave the country or step down as a leader of the Islamic community.

“It’s time we stopped just saying he should apologise. It is time the Islamic community did more then say they were horrified. I think it is time he left,” Ms Goward said.

Victorian Liberal backbencher Sophie Mirabella wants the sheik to consider moving back to the Middle East.

“I have a message for Sheik Alhilali: This is Australia, not Iran, and violence and degradation of women is not acceptable,” she said.

More senior members of government were also scathing.

“Certainly I think if a religious leader in the Catholic Church or the Anglican Church or in Judaism was to make these sorts of statements, they would be getting a very severe rap over the knuckles, at the very least,” Health Minister Tony Abbott told the Nine Network.

“He’s wrong. He should be reprimanded and it’s up to ordinary, decent Australians to make it clear that he is wrong.”

Treasurer Peter Costello urged other Muslims to pull the sheik into line.

“I hope that the moderate Muslim leaders will speak out today and condemn these comments,” he told the Seven Network.”

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said the sheik’s comments were offensive and should be corrected by the Islamic community.

Not much luck so far: Keysar Trad says earlier in the article that this has all been taken out of context:

President of the Islamic Friendship Council of Australia, Keysar Trad, said the sheik’s comments had been misrepresented, although he admitted his analogies could have been better.

“From what I understand, he was talking about the context of encouraging people to abstinence before getting married,” Mr Trad said.

“His references to exposed meat etc was a very poor example that was meant to be a reference to both men and women, he wasn’t talking about Islamic dress, he wasn’t talking about rape.”

Oh, really now. From the earlier item:

Sheik Hilali said there were women who “sway suggestively” and wore make-up and immodest dress … “and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years”.

What it really feels like to wear the ‘burqa’

What it really feels like to wear the ‘burqa’

Last updated at 15:40pm on 14th October 2006  


As I walk along a London street I feel completely cut off from the world around me. I’m in it, yet I’m apart. I’m wearing a burqa, the full-length Islamic veil that covers not only a woman’s body, but her head and face as well. What I can see of the world, I’m seeing through a crocheted panel set into the black material. It stops me from really seeing where I am going and it stops me from seeing what’s going on to my left or right. I feel like a blinkered horse, forced to look straight ahead, undistracted by what may be happening on either side of me. The first thing I realise, apart from the fact that it is incredibly hot and airless under the thick black material is that I can no longer communicate with the people I pass. On a pedestrian crossing, I turn to smile my thanks at the driver who’s stopped to let me cross. But black material hides the gesture. I perch on the red bench at the bus stop. There are ten other people in the queue, many of different nationalities. The bus is late and there’s a comradely growl of complaint about London Transport as yet another bus of the wrong number comes round the corner. It’s a tiny moment of human communication and relationship which I, in the solitude of my black tent, am wholly excluded from. No one even bothers to look in my direction. It makes me feel less than human. When Jack Straw disclosed that he asks Muslim women who hold constituency meetings with him to remove their veils so that they can truly talk face to face, he unleashed a storm of controversy. He later told BBC Radio Lancashire that we needed to discuss this issue in our society, because we relate to people through their faces and if you can’t read people’s faces properly, that makes for some separation. Jack Straw was referring to the niqab, a veil which usually leaves a long open slot around the eyes, but I decided to take it one step further with my burqa, the most concealing of veils, which leaves just the mesh screen to see through. Sitting on the bus, I thought about what he had said. We do read people through their faces, and not only their faces: their clothes, their hands, their jewellery: all give us clues about who a person is, whether they’re trustworthy, potentially likeable. Lately, we’ve made a big fuss about hoodies, and young men wearing motorbike helmets aren’t allowed into office buildings unless they remove their helmets so we can see their faces. The bus fills up and a woman sits down in the seat beside me. I look at her sideways out of the corner of my crocheted panel. She’s my age, nicely dressed, looks like she’s going to work. Just then my phone starts ringing and I fumble under my burqa to try and turn it off. But I see it’s my husband calling and decide to take it. After a mumbled conversation, I turn it off and look at my neighbour. She’s grinning. “You’re in disguise”, she says. I confess that I am and ask what she thought when she sat down next to me. “I didn’t want to, but there wasn’t anywhere else to sit and my feet hurt. I mean, you could be anything, a man, a woman, a bomber. Veiled woman are frightening.” Dressed like this, no one can tell anything about me and in that absence of familiar signals, there are only assumptions based on fear. Male and female bedouins first wore veils to shield themselves from sandstorms and it wasn’t until the 10th century that the garment was imposed across the Middle East to diminish the status of women. It is not a widespread custom. There are no burqas in largely Muslim Indonesia, Malaysia or Bangladesh. In the Seventies I lived and worked in Kuwait where most of my strictly Muslim friends took pride in their Western dress. I was editing an Arabic women’s weekly magazine which had been started by a dynamic Kuwaiti woman, Ganima Al-Mazouk, who had used her own personal fortune to try to transform the lives of Arab women. By the time I met Ganima, her husband had died and she had embraced the Mouhajabah movement. Mouhajabah literally means the wearing of a head cover (as against the burqa in which I was walking around London) and for Ganima it was a reaction to the Westernisation of Mulsim countries. In the Arab world’s rush to embrace everything Western — fast cars, drink, gambling — many of the women felt alienated and unwanted, as the age-old structures of life collapsed. No longer were marriages arranged: now you had to find a husband through seduction and feminine wiles. Many quickly discovered that competing with Western women, wearing the same clothes and make-up and living independent lives, made them uncomfortable. “It made us feel like sex objects, as if men were only judging us by our looks”, she told me. Covering your head made a public statement of “treat me like a person, not a sex object”. But there was never any element of subjugation in Ganima’s decision. It was one that I found easy to respect. But that all seems a long time ago — an awful lot has changed in both our countries. It’s tricky getting off the bus. The sight panel floats in front of my eyes, so that, unless I pull it down with one hand, I cannot see the ground directly beneath me. I end up gripping the fabric between my teeth as I step off the Number 7 on to Oxford Street. It’s just after nine in the morning as I walk along the pavement, looking at the shop windows. By extraordinary coincidence I see someone I know very well walking towards me. I know where she works and I guess she’s on her way there now. I stare at her as she approaches but, of course, I’m just a mobile black shape. I’m nobody. Then I think that if she was also dressed as I am, I wouldn’t recognise her either. Two friends could pass each other by a matter of a few feet and be none the wiser. In Selfridges, I walk slowly through the make-up department. Needless to say, no one approached me offering sample sprays of perfume. I gingerly negotiate the escalator to the basement and sit down at the small cafe next to stands full of brightly coloured vases, mirrors, trinkets, costume jewellery and candle sticks. I don’t feel that any of these things — unessential but pretty and life affirming — are for me. I want a cup of coffee but how to attract the waiter? It’s pointless turning my head in his direction and smiling to get his attention. After a few minutes, I put up my hand and he comes over, smiling. I smile back, forgetting that he won’t see this. Awkwardly, I drink my coffee under the folds of fabric thinking how terribly tricky it is to perform even simple tasks like this. On the next table, a couple are having an argument about a present they might or might not buy for a forthcoming wedding. You can’t read a book, let alone a newspaper, when you’re dressed like this, so I eavesdrop on their every word. They are quite oblivious to the black shape sitting in the chair beside them. It feels lonely, the black cotton surrounding me denying me the simple human interactions of everyday life: a smile, a nod, a look, the little acts of communication that tell us we’re human beings occupying the same space. Back on the street, I board another bus and travel down Regent Street towards the Trafalgar Square. No one sits next to me. The veil is an explicit statement of separation and distance. It seems to me to be far more than a statement of religious identity. Nuns wear habits, to express their relationship to their God, but you can always see their faces. Their dress is not shouting out “don’t deal with me”. The burqa is different. It says, or at least to me it seems to say, “I don’t want to have anything to do with you” and, at this level, it is hard not to see it as a rejection of our society and of our world, especially of the way in which women live in our world. I know that underneath their veils, many Muslim women wear pretty clothes and make-up, sharing these with their friends and family from inside the safety of their homes. I understand also that for many women there is a feeling of safety inside these garments. The problem of how to deal with people, how to negotiate your way as a citizen is removed. But I find it hard to believe that it can make a woman happy. If being veiled was such a great way to live, then why don’t Arab men dress like this, too? A few buses later and after several more cups of coffee, I walk into Marks & Spencer’s. Circling through the racks of clothes, I end up bumping into three different people because I couldn’t see them from out of the corner of my eyes. The colours of the autumn ranges are bright and pretty and as I’m standing beside the cashmere jumpers, a couple walks close by. They’re in late middle age and their voices are loud. “Just look at that,” the woman sneers, “It’s horrible. You can’t see her. You can’t ever see her eyes.” “I know, I know” nods her husband in agreement. “Really horrible.” Their disapproval seems to border on hatred. I stand there feeling stunned and outraged. I want to rip off the black garment and hit them. I hate being inside this hot tent and I will never believe that any woman would willingly decide that that was how she wanted to live, but neither do I think anyone has the right to insult women who dress like this, nor do any of us have the right to say that it should be against the law to wear one. I bought a glittery black and silver top and paid in cash. The cashier took the money briskly, not bothering to smile or joke or engage in any of the normal platitudes. Arab men conceal their women under folds of black cloth to hide their sexuality and to claim ownership — the only males who can see them uncovered are their fathers, husbands and sons —which makes the burqa, in an odd way a sexual garment. It’s like a chastity belt, but also alluring because things that are hidden create their own sexual mystery. What burqa wearers don’t have to play is the comparison game that is the lot of Western women — who, no matter how confident, are permanently judging themselves against often impossible images of feminine perfection. Many Muslim women in this country may well be telling the truth when they say that they wear the full veil out of choice. And choice is something that is intrinsic to a liberal society. Wearing the veil cuts a woman out of our society, a society which embraces freedom and opportunity. But why should our values be the only ones that are ‘right?’ and what, at the end of the day, is wrong with difference? In our liberal world the only rules we have are that, provided you don’t break the law, you can live entirely as you like, and isn’t that the real point of a liberal society? So have we the right to be intolerant of the veil? We may not like women in veils and we may feel that it is to their detriment, because they can’t get a job in a busy, competitive office or strive to be beautiful lookalikes of Kate Moss. All the same, I would deeply resent being told what to do and how to behave, and doesn’t it totally invalidate our concept of living in a genuinely liberal society if we insist that all people be alike, at least where women and their dress code is concerned? And yet, I find it impossible to believe that the women who say they wear the veil out of choice have not in fact been coerced and influenced by their male relatives and clerics. The Chairman of the Association of Muslim Schools and the Principal of Leicester Islamic Academy, Muhammad Mukdam recently said on Radio Four’s The Moral Maze that all girls at his school, even non-Muslim girls, would be expected to cover themselves. “We have a school uniform and that means wearing the hijab and the jilbab.” These young girls, growing up in our society where women have fought to win the equality and rights we have today, are, it seems to me, being denied full access to that world. Most jobs in Britain would be quite impossible for women wearing burqas, leaving them with no option but to live off their fathers or husbands. And yet, it is hard to see how legislation itself could ever change this. The best way has to be encouragement through example. But the example we currently hold up is hugely flawed: fashionistas struggling to achieve a size zero body, a generation of women plunging into debt to buy the latest must-have clothes, scantily dressed teenage girls getting legless on a Friday night because somehow this is thought of as “cool”. Looking out between the slits of my long black veil, I have little confidence that the example we currently hold out is one that everyone would willingly leap to embrace. I’m coming at this as a feminist who has always fought for freedom and for choice and everything the burqa stands for runs contrary to this. The freedom that women in the West enjoy has been long fought for and rightfully prized. But I wonder if our noisy condemnation of this mode of dress doesn’t actually entrench it further into Muslim culture as it stokes up such heated prejudice. In that febrile atmosphere it is nigh on impossible to separate what is an issue of human rights from accusations of racism and Islamophobia. Feminism spread in this country because women were given the confidence to make choices about how they wanted to live and I can only hope that living in the West will give Arab women the courage to confront the veil and make choices based on what they want — and not on the whims of the clerics and their men.