Soldier4Christ
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2007, 04:52:33 AM » |
|
"Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are working toward the same goal, but the Brotherhood is willing to work through it politically and take their time," said Mr. Farah, the counterterrorism consultant. "They want an Islamic state. Does that mean they're going to pick up a gun and start shooting at the [U.S.] president? No. They're going to work the system."
The U.S. is among the countries where the Brotherhood has sought to spread its message, according to Department of Justice prosecutors in the Holy Land case.
Prosecutors say that the Brotherhood was behind the Palestinian Committee, formed in the U.S. in the 1980s.
The Palestinian Committee was led by was Mousa Abu Marzook, former head of Hamas and now its No. 2 political chief. He has been designated as a terrorist by the U.S., and was closely tied to the Holy Land Foundation, according to evidence presented at the trial.
Mr. Marzook provided tens of thousands of dollars to the foundation, which also gave money back to charities that the government alleges are controlled by Hamas.
Mr. Marzook is also related by marriage to former Holy Land board chairman Ghassan Elashi, who along with his brothers has been convicted in prior trials of engaging in illegal business with Mr. Marzook.
The goal of the Palestinian Committee, which trial documents indicate existed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was to raise money in the U.S. to fund Hamas.
This was to be accomplished by forming a complex network of seemingly benign Muslim organizations whose real job, according to the government, was to spread militant propaganda and raise money.
The Muslim Brotherhood created some American Muslim groups and sought influence in others, many of which are listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.
On the list are several prominent groups, including the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. All have protested their inclusion on the list.
Holy Land's organizers have long denied ties to Hamas. They say their foundation was concerned only with providing much-needed humanitarian aid to Palestinian families devastated by the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Underground
Counterterrorism officials say that regardless of what anyone thinks of the Holy Land documents, the threat from radicals outside and inside the U.S. is real. A common belief among law enforcement and government officials is that after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and post-9/11, radicals have retreated underground.
"People who harbor the secret desire for the U.S. to become more Islamic are not going to announce themselves in the current climate," said Jeff Breinholt, a 17-year Justice Department official who until June was deputy chief of the national Counterterrorism Section, where he oversaw the nationwide terrorist financing program.
"However, they may be willing to violate laws they view as unfair, which is what I think occurred in the Holy Land Foundation case."
He cited a Pew study this year showing that of 1,050 American Muslims surveyed, most held moderate views. About 78 percent said suicide bombing is never justified.
But 8 percent of Muslims of all ages said that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified in defense of Islam. Among those under 30, 15 percent said such acts can often or sometimes be justified. The percentage was higher among European Muslims.
"There are a lot of religious people in the U.S. who have strange geopolitical views and hopes," Mr. Breinholt said. "I think they dig themselves deeper when they try to polish eccentric views in documents that we uncover."
'Wishful thinking'
Mahdi Bray, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation, which promotes Muslim civil rights, called the Holy Land documents "a throwback." He has attended portions of the Holy Land trial.
"If those documents talk about the establishing of Shariah law in America, I'm saying that's a lot of hype: wishful thinking from an immigrant perspective. ... It doesn't reflect genuine American perspective in terms of where we're heading," Mr. Bray said.
He said members of MAS decided in 1993, when the organization was founded, that they would pursue political and nonviolent tactics.
"I wouldn't be candid if I didn't say there weren't some old-timers who want to hold onto the old way, who say that this is the way the Ikhwan did it, this should be our model," he said. "We said 'So what? It doesn't work here.' We've been very adamant about that."
Mr. Bray, an Islamic convert, has been criticized by some as being an apologist for terrorists, particularly for his condemnation of Israel's 2004 missile strike in the Palestinian Gaza Strip that killed Hamas' spiritual founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
Mr. Bray says that although his politics are controversial, he's not anti-American.
"Those on the right and many of those who I would classify as Islamophobes, many of them have failed to realize that there is an authentic American Muslim organization here and movement in America that wants to integrate," he said. "We believe the ballot is an appropriate place to be."
He said that he "liked the Bill of Rights" and didn't want to see the Constitution replaced with Islamic law.
"There's a maturation that's taken place in the American Muslim community that's either not understood, or understood but viewed as a threat to other interest groups in this country."
To argue that the Holy Land documents are old and outdated is hardly an excuse for their content, said Mark Briskman, regional director of the Dallas Anti-Defamation League, a pro-Jewish organization.
"The Hamas charter is dated, but the terrorists have never renounced that document," he said, adding that it calls for the destruction of Israel. "The Constitution is dated, but we still follow it."
"We've never seen a document like this," he said. "That's their plan for taking over Western civilization. This is the smoking gun. We think this is a document that needs to be understood and seen widely in the U.S."
Aside from polling, it's difficult to determine how many Americans Muslims harbor extremist views.
A conservative nonprofit group, the Society of Americans for National Existence, has gone so far as to sponsor a project attempting to identify jihadist radicals by visiting every mosque and Islamic school in the country. Critics have likened the approach to racial profiling.
Dr. Mandaville, the Islamic scholar, said that although U.S. law enforcement, particularly the FBI, has been "fairly successful in analyzing and picking off the key figures in these networks in the U.S." – they still exist.
"The people who hold these views today don't really affiliate with any particular group," Dr. Mandaville said. "They're fluid in their social networking. They fade into the background and when necessary, produce a legitimate front to the activity they're involved in."
Contradiction
While the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders in Egypt claim to have broken from violent radicalism, choosing the ballot box over bullets, the Brotherhood's English language Web site sends contradictory messages.
On one hand, several articles and statements indicate that the group wants to reform the West, not necessarily destroy it. It repeatedly accuses the U.S. of being "anti-Muslim" mostly for its historic backing of Israeli interests.
But a recent article analyzing the repercussions of 9/11 six years later says that al-Qaeda failed "to make Americans feel the lack of security because it failed to repeat the attacks throughout six years!"
In response to a poll on its site that asked, "Should the Muslim Brotherhood and the U.S. engage in direct dialogue?" 51 percent answered yes.
There are those in the U.S. government who believe that the Brotherhood is the Bush administration's best chance for reaching out to moderate Islamists internationally.
The Brotherhood "works to dissuade the Muslims from violence, instead channeling them into politics and charitable activities," said Robert S. Leiken, director of the Immigration and National Security Program at The Nixon Center in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, a publication of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations.
While he has not studied the Holy Land documents, Dr. Leiken said that the U.S. discussion on Islamic thought tends to be polarized and that what passes for scholarship is often more selective than rigorous.
"The more you study it, the more distinctions and differences should emerge," he said. "And scholars should see these distinctions. In Europe, these things are understood better, but in the U.S., they often get brushed aside in the heat of the debate."
|