So, the American Muslim brotherhood fronts are concerned about the recently released report -read here - by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC or “the Committee”) headed by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, “Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, And the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.” The Committee report states:

This Dawn news report from the American Muslim press notes:

Having read the Committee report, we differ from our bete noire in the American fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood. Senators Lieberman and Collins have been courageous in holding hearings on Radical Islamic Extremism in America, so anything they say, will be viewed as “Islamophobia.”

Witness this comment from an ally of CAIR, the Washington office of the ACLU, captured in a Huffington Post article:

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, summarized the ACLU response to the ‘awful’ Lieberman/Collins Senate Committee report:

Though the need to prevent criminal acts of violence is unquestionable, targeting communities based on religious beliefs is unacceptable and unproductive. We will only end up stigmatizing the Islamic community and creating a nation of Islamophobes. We should not be legislating against thought and we should certainly not be regulating religious or unpopular thought. A dynamic debate can only make this country stronger and safer. (More here)

We have a different opinion about the Committee report on ‘terrorism’, the first in a series of such reports on Islamic Extremism in America to be produced by the Committee.

The analysis misses the ‘800 pound gorilla in the room’ the core of Jihadist doctrine in the Canon of Islam. Apparently, they haven’t read the “Mapping Sharia Project” interim report about how radical most US Mosques are. As Mapping Sharia project head, David Yerushalmi commented to me in an email , the word ’sharia’ appears only three times in the Committee report. Nor, apparently, have they had the benefit of a briefing by Stephen Coughlin on Islamic Law Threat Doctrine. The Committee report has fallen for the line that ‘outreach’ to American Muslims, ironically via the Muslim Brotherhood fronts, is the way to go. After all that’s what the FBI, the Office of Civil rights and Civil Liberties of DHS and the Pentagon do. All because these American Muslim leaders want to avoid ‘radicalization’. We guess they also haven’t spoken to M. Zhudi Jasserof the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a moderate American Muslim, who might have set them straight about the goals of Political Islam as propounded by the Muslim Brotherhood fronts. They obviously didn’t read the transcripts of the Dallas Federal Holy Land foundation trial about the objective of Muslim Brotherhood fronts to convert the US to Sharia Islamic Law in their secret 20 Year plan. Now they have a letter from representatives of the very same Muslim Brotherhood fronts accusing the Committee of basing its findings on the ‘tainted’ report of the NYPD, ‘The Role of Local Law Enforcement in Countering Violent Islamic Extremism”.

The Committee avoided recommendations of the White House Homeland Security report, NATO and independent experts that shutting down the al Qaeda and related terrorist websites and chat rooms, as Prof. Niv Ahituv at Tel Aviv University and our own Joseph Shahda and others, have indicated is the best immediate strategy. Nor has this report addressed the closing of US ISP hosted terrorist sites including those of the Somali al Qaeda groups and those of Hezbollah. The Committee has chronicled the al Qaeda cyber warrior production and internet apparatus thoroughly. The report, however, relies on a questionable thesis from the West Point Combating Terrorism Center that monitoring terrorist websites for ‘actionable intelligence’ is the best strategy.

Then we have former CIA psychiatrist, Dr. Marc Sagerman with his peculiar views on group dynamics and social networking via the internet to produce ‘predispositions’ to Jihadism.

We wonder what the Muslim Brotherhood fronts reactions would be if the Committee had based its report on the Islamic Law doctrine of Jihad. Ironically, they might accept that rather than the NYPD report.