Thursday, November 6, 2008

Charities and Terrorism

(Compiler's note: Must read. rca)

by Phil Leggiere


New paper examines how Al Qaeda uses moderate Muslims to ‘microfinance” terror

Terrorist networks and organizations have many “underground” means of financing themselves, from drug smuggling to cybercrime. As challenging as these clandestine methods are to globally eradicate, an equally vexing problem is how to shut-off jihadist funding siphoned off from so-called “legitimate” charities.

Addressing that problem, according to Tolga Koker Department of Economics and Carlos Yordan Department of Political Science Drew University, means addressing the question of why tens of thousands of Muslims who are not terrorists and often opposed themselves to terrorism nonetheless support the work of charities that support jihadist operations. Their new paper , titled Microfinancing Terrorism: A Study in Al Qaeda Financing Strategy, published Tuesday by the Social Science Research Network, tries to do just that.

Although new banking and financial regulations may have made it difficult for terrorist groups to move funds around the world, the authors argue, these groups have be quite resourceful in finding ways to adapt to the new regulatory environment and to undermine it.

“For terrorist networks,” they write, “ especially those informed by jihadist ideologies, one source of finance is Muslims’ religious donations to Islamic charities. Although Al Qaeda and its affiliates have employed other funding mechanisms, individual donations are a key source of financing because it is a steady flow of funds.

Charities, according to the report, have been a fundamental part of Al Qaeda’s financial Infrastructure, not only helping Al Qaeda raise funds, but allowing it to move funds across national boundaries and hide the transfers from financial regulators.

Though some charities, according to the authors knowingly and actively supported Al Qaeda’s efforts, “most were not aware that al Qaeda operatives working for these charities or that they were siphoning off thousands of dollars to fund terrorist activities and to build Al Qaeda’s global network, which supported jihadist struggles in Chechnya, the Balkans, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia.”

"Given that Al Qaeda and other groups fund most of their activities through donations, collected by Islamic charities, why would Muslims provide funds to these organizations," the authors ask.

The answer, the authors conclude, is that "social pressure forces moderate Muslims to publicly support the work of charities that may provide assistance to Al Qaeda or groups inspired by a jihadist worldview."

As they explain it, an individual will comply with social pressures and donate funds to a charity that may supports jihadi causes if he perceives it as critical to his reputation and public recognition as a “practicing” Muslim. Given the primacy of charitable donations in the culture and status system of Muslim communities the need to maintain reputation in this sphere is a powerful force, one that Al Qaeda has been able to tap.

“Microfinancing jihadi charities has a snowballing effect,’ they write. “A Muslim who previously refrained from donating to Islamic charities is likely to find himself in a position to provide some funds to religious organizations if he constantly observes his fellow acquaintances’ donations. As a bigger portion of Muslims are yielding to social pressures to contribute extra monies to jihadi charities, al Qaeda and other groups informed by jihadi goals will secure more funds to run their violent operations.”

The reputational model of charitable behavior, the authors believe, has strong implications for policy and counter-terror strategy.

“ The model implies,” they say, “ that identifying first and then publicly exposing such charities may help pious Muslims, especially those with high expressive drive to sincerely voice their concern among their communities. Encouraging individual donors with high threshold to voice their opinion against violence may create a snowballing effect deterring others from contributing to possible jihadi charities.”

“More importantly,” they conclude, “ finding ways to decrease reputational benefits is crucial in curbing the financial resources flowing terrorist networks. However, this is not an easy task. It needs the involvement of secular charities to provide several basic services that were considerably diminished with the neo-liberal polices since the 1980s in Muslim countries and elsewhere. Strictly regulated foreign aid to secular charities may help in this regard.”

The ultimate goal of this campaign of cultural outreach will be “making contribution to jihadi charities unpopular, and hence, changing the direction of social pressure from donating monies to such charities to avoiding such organization will have a paramount effect in the fight against terrorism. This is a long-term goal which is not feasible in the very short run since it asks for major revisions in world politics of which the jihadi charities are by-products.”

Obama Hears ‘Family Jewels’ Intel Briefing, Clearance Concerns

By Anthony L. Kimery,

Such briefings have 'been the beginning of when a new president’s hair starts turning white'

President-elect Barack Obama today receives his first comprehensive, "above" Top Secret presidential-level intelligence briefing.

In addition to receiving the regular "President’s Daily Brief," or PDB, which consists of analytical summaries of best available intelligence on vital national security matters over the previous 24-hours, intelligence sources told HSToday.us that Obama's briefing also will include the latest analysis on the reconstitution of Al Qaeda and the terrorist organization’s presence in Pakistan and Pakistan's border with Afghanistan; the state of the terrorist/insurgency in Iraq and Pakistan; Al Qaeda’s efforts to acquire nuclear and, especially, biological weapons; Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile developments; and the increasing threat posed to the United States by Mexico’s warring narco-terrorist cartels, which have ties to Colombia’s FARC and Islamist terrorist organizations with long-established operational infrastructure throughout Central and South America.

(Editor’s Note: In the January issue, HSToday will feature a major report on Mexico’s cartels by Anthony Kimery, online editor and senior reporter, who in October met with federal, state and local law enforcement during a trip to the US/Mexico border)

Director of National Intelligence and former National Security Agency Director Mike McConnell will provide the first presidential-level intelligence briefing to Obama and selected president-elect transition team members. He will be accompanied by CIA Director of Intelligence, Michael J. Morell, a 28-year CIA veteran and former Associate Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

Although Obama received regular intelligence briefings as a presidential candidate, this will be the first time he is presented the PDB, which is similar to the daily intelligence summary that’s prepared for the Secretary of State by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which may prepare any number of briefs for the Secretary throughout the day.

As a matter of background, INR provides value-added independent analysis of events to Department policymakers; ensures intelligence activities support foreign policy and national security purposes; and serves as the focal point in the Department for ensuring policy review of sensitive counterintelligence and law enforcement activities.

In a memo to CIA officers regarding the transition between the incoming Obama administration and the outgoing Bush White House, Director of Central Intelligence Michael Hayden stated “we in the Intelligence Community [IC] will have—until noon on January 20th—two sets of consumers. As we continue to serve the current administration, we are also in touch with President-elect Obama and his national security team. Through expanded access, greater than what he had in his briefings as a candidate or as a Senator, he will see the full range of capabilities we deploy for the United States."

In short, Obama will be given the most classified briefing he’s yet had on the threats to national security and American interests around the world. He’ll also be briefed on the US’s vast intelligence gathering capabilities. One of the IC sources HSToday.us spoke to said historically, such briefings have “been the beginning of when a new president’s hair starts turning white.”

Similarly, Karl Rove, President Bush’s former deputy chief of staff, said Wednesday night that no matter what a presidential candidate might think and say during an election, it all changes when he receives “that first intelligence briefing.” Rove added that once you have access to the intelligence the president does, “it changes you”—you suddenly have a completely new perspective.

Whether it is a President, members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, or anyone with this level of security clearance, the first exposure to the intelligence that Obama now has access to can be a mind opening event, the sources explained.

Having been privy to leaks of every classification of intelligence, this reporter can testify that these characterizations are accurate.

As President, Obama automatically is granted access to any codeword Top-Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) and Special Access Program (SAPs).

(By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute form SF 312—the "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" [CINA]—as a condition of access to classified information. All other members of government and civilians who conditionally are granted a clearance must sign the CINA)

Top White House officials must undergo routine security clearance procedures for security clearances, but, depending on the level of their "need to know," these clearances may not grant them access to all TS/SCI code-word intelligence, programs and analysis, or SAPs, which typically are highly classified military weapons platforms or intelligence activities. And, as with all persons given clearances to classified information, they must sign the CINA "as a condition of access."

The seriousness of the nature of TS/SCI information is underscored by the official presumption that unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security—even war.

With regard to security clearances, HSToday.us was told that some members of Obama’s inner circle who he may intend to appoint to White House or administration posts who do not already possess security clearances may face delays in their clearances being processed because of past or present associations with “problematic” persons, a presumed reference to associations with former domestic terrorist William Ayers and others who have histories or have been involved in activities that inherently are of concern to the FBI and Secret Service, and which typically in any other circumstance might prohibit the granting of a security clearance.

While some uninformed bloggers and partisan websites have pooh-poohed the notion of problems stemming from anyone in Obama’s camp having had prior associations with the likes of the Ayers’ or who have espoused radical positions that ordinarily would raise concern on the part of the Secret Service and FBI, the truth is that these are matters that are indeed taken very seriously, and which potentially could cause problems that require more extensive vetting in order to satisfy the Secret Service, FBI and IC.

Legitimate questions also were raised by security and intelligence authorities prior to the election about whether Obama himself would have qualified for the level of clearance he automatically received upon being elected President because of his own association with Ayers, other questionable persons, and other matters that are routinely red-flagged as part of a TS/SCI clearance investigation. The concern was justified, despite, again, uninformed bloggers and partisan websites saying otherwise. The reality is it’s debatable whether Obama would have been cleared for a TS/SCI security clearance had he not been elected president.

"There is no possibility that a Top Secret clearance would be awarded to a member of the Armed Forces whose background included such associations. An intelligence service clearance for the handling of highly classified material would be totally out of the question," wrote George Wittman, a member of the Committee on the Present Danger and founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Obama was granted a security clearance as a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, where he was appointed chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs in early 2007, but it was no where near the level of clearance that’s given to senior White House officials.


Indeed. As the CINA briefing booklet notes, members of Congress—who, incidentally, do not have to sign a CINA—"are not inherently authorized to receive all classified information, but agencies provide access as is necessary for Congress to perform its legislative functions, for example, to members of a committee or subcommittee that oversees classified executive branch programs. Frequently, access is governed in these situations by ad hoc agreements or rules to which the agency head and the committee chairman agree."

Applicants under serious consideration for an administration appointment are subject to thorough, rigorous and more personally intrusive scrutiny than most people probably imagine. The FBI background check— which includes analysis of a wide range of federal and intelligence databases—looks at employment, professional, personal, travel, medical, financial, legal, military and educational histories, which are carefully reviewed and scrutinized. In addition, the applicant must undergo a polygraph and psychological evaluation.

New vetting processes for determining clearance eligibility involves several steps, including: Validating the need for a clearance; an electronic application; automated records checks; electronic adjudication; an enhanced subject interview; an expandable focused investigation; and continuous evaluation between clearance investigations.

A TS/SCI clearance can take as long as 100 hours for just one applicant.

Both the Obama camp and the IC would prefer to avoid the kind of problems that plagued the security clearance vetting process that plagued the incoming Clinton administration, members of which were given access to highly classified materials for long periods without having the proper clearance, some of whom in retrospect should not have been granted clearances and who violated the terms of the CINAs they signed.

Historically, one of the biggest challenges faced by incoming administrations has been the time required to obtain security clearances for key officials.

Pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which implemented a 9/11 Commission recommendation, presidential candidates “may submit, before the date of the general election, requests for security clearances for prospective transition team members” who need access to classified information while working on the transition. It also allows the President-elect to submit requests for other nominees immediately after the election. Both Obama and McCain had requested clearances for roughly 100 transition team members between them.

To help accelerate the next administration’s transition, President Bush established a transition commission which in part was tasked with streamlining and accelerating the security clearance process.

We’ll see how well it works.

Sources familiar with the matter said Obama, unlike President Clinton, intends to give the top IC leaders his ear. Clinton, in contrast, virtually shunned CIA Director Jim Woolsey. Clinton also was roundly criticized for his lax interest in intelligence matters and for his disinterest in his regular intelligence briefings, which he sometimes cut short or delegated to subordinates.

Transition vulnerability

by

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Wednesday that the United States is vulnerable to attack or other incidents during the presidential transition period and that the military is ready to respond.

"When you go back and look at the number of incidents that have occurred three or four months before an inauguration to about 12 months out, back to the '50s, it's pretty staggering the number of major incidents which have occurred in this time frame," Adm. Michael Mullen said, noting that the danger is compounded by current world conditions.

The Sept. 11 attacks, for example, occurred eight months after President Bush took office, at a time when many key appointments had not been made.

Recent preparations for the transition in the Pentagon were aimed at preventing any attacks, and if an attack or incident does take place, the military is ready to respond, Adm. Mullen told Sara A. Carter, national security reporter for The Washington Times.

Shifts from old to new administrations are "always a challenging time in our country, always have been," Adm. Mullen said.

"Transitions are always difficult," he said. "We've put a lot of effort into it, and we're ready."

The chairman said he is concerned about the transition because of the global threats and opportunities facing the United States at the present time, namely in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I consider this a time of vulnerability, and I've worked this for months to have a transition team prepare for a new administration, mindful that this new administration, they don't take charge until the 20th of January," Adm. Mullen said.

The four-star admiral, who is the designated chief military adviser, stated that the military serves "one commander in chief always" while at the same time he will be going to "great lengths" to respond to the Obama transition team.

The team is expected to show up "very rapidly in this building," and Adm. Mullen said he and his staff are ready to help. Adm. Mullen is halfway through his two-year term as chairman.

Leaders' futures

One of the first decisions President-elect Barack Obama must make is whether to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who plans to leave office unless asked to stay.

"As far as I know, he is still planning on returning to his home in Washington state at the end of this administration," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told Inside the Ring Wednesday.

"But as he has said many times before, he learned long ago never to say 'never' and does not rule out the prospect of serving the nation longer if needed."

Mr. Gates has focused most of his time at the Pentagon on the Iraq war since taking over for Donald H. Rumsfeld in December 2006.

Mr. Obama stated on his campaign's Web site that "immediately upon taking office," he will order the defense secretary and military commanders to end the Iraq war and withdraw U.S. troops "responsibly."

He said Oct. 30 that he views it as important to have Republicans in senior leadership posts in his administration, but he did not answer a direct question on whether he would keep Mr. Gates.

Among those considered for the key national security post of defense secretary are former Clinton administration Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, an Obama adviser, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican and critic of the Bush administration's war-on-terror policies.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden also may resign or be replaced.

Asked whether Mr. Hayden will leave or stay, CIA spokesman George Little pointed to a statement Mr. Hayden sent to CIA employees Wednesday that said "those privileged to lead this organization understand that they serve at the pleasure of the president.

Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi declined to comment on planned appointments or requests for officials to stay in place.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell also suggested that he may step down before the new administration. In a message to employees that was obtained by The Washington Times, Mr. McConnell said intelligence agencies have been working for months to prepare for the transition, which is about to enter "a critical stage" after the election and before the inauguration.

"A new national security team will soon emerge," Mr. McConnell said. "The current administration is leaning forward to ensure that the incoming team has security clearances and access to sensitive intelligence as soon as possible."

Intelligence agencies will both be working with the current administration and helping the incoming team, he said.

"We will be responsive to both and will work out priorities should conflicts arise."

A spokesman for Mr. McConnell said the director said earlier that he intends to leave at the end of the current administration unless he is asked to stay on for a period during the transition.

Obama and missile defense

Defense specialists say one likely policy change at the Pentagon under the incoming Obama administration will be funding cuts and program modifications for U.S. strategic missile defenses.

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama stated that he opposes "unworkable" missile defenses but that he thinks missile defenses are needed to counter Iranian and North Korean missiles.

A defense official involved in missile defense, however, said there is no reason to believe major changes will be made to the current missile-defense program.

"The Democrat-led Congress appropriated $9 billion for missile defense for 2009, only about $320 million less than the president's budget request," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of political sensitivities.

"Both North Korea and Iran are continuing their development of missiles of all ranges, including missiles capable of striking the U.S., and there is no indication the threat will abate anytime soon, considering how much money both countries are spending on missile development."

Missile defenses were integrated into the Bush administration's new strategic triad of capabilities, which include nuclear and precision conventional strike forces, passive and active defenses, and the buildup of defense infrastructure. The old triad was a combination of land-based, sea-based and bomber-carrying nuclear forces.

John Holum, former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency director and an Obama campaign adviser, told the Arms Control Association in June that Mr. Obama would limit strategic missile defenses to current deployments in California and Alaska.

"But at the same time, he thinks it´s very important to proceed on the basis of workable defenses, making sure that systems are capable before we put so many resources into these systems," Mr. Holum said.

Missile defense also needs to be based on threats and should focus on short-range missile defenses and "local defenses" against missiles, Mr. Holum said.

Mr. Obama's priorities for missile defense include so-called theater or regional defenses, "and further down the list, as the technology is proven, more effective defenses; national or longer-range defenses," Mr. Holum said.

Mr. Obama thinks a missile attack is less likely than a nuclear blast carried out from a suitcase, boxcar or shipping container smuggled into the country, "where missile defenses don't have any impact," Mr. Holum said.

During the Clinton administration, Mr. Holum opposed both short-range and long-range missile defenses during interagency discussions, favoring existing arms agreements over hardware, according to internal documents obtained at the time.

Mr. Holum led Clinton administration efforts to extend the now-defunct 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in talks with the Russians to cover short-range defenses, a move opposed by many in the Pentagon as restricting needed defenses against short-range missile attack.

Riki M. Ellison, chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said he thinks missile defense will grow internationally under Mr. Obama and become part of "an alliance-building movement."

However, missile defenses are likely to be approached differently than under Mr. Bush, he said.

"I believe that there will be no growth in the long-range ballistic missile capability that includes both here in Alaska and California as well as Poland and little growth if any on future missile-defense systems," Mr. Ellison said in an e-mail.

Wanted: Suicide bombers to attack U.S.

By Chelsea Schilling

Iranian group recruits young 'martyrs' to fight 'global arrogance'

A terrorist group is distributing flyers in Iran calling for young volunteers to join the Lebanese Hezbollah to carry out suicide operations against the "Global Arrogance"also known as the United States.

The leaflets promise young recruits that they will join "fighters in the worldwide front against the Global Arrogance," the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, reported. The term is used by some Iranian officials in reference to the U.S.

On Nov. 1, Tabnak, an Iranian news website identified with Expediency Discernment Council Secretary and former Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezai, announced a group has been actively recruiting members in Tehran and large Iranian provinces for Lebanon's Hezbollah. The flyers are labeled "Registration for Membership in the Lebanese Hezbollah " and "Registration for Martyrdom Operations." Each form requires addresses and additional information so recruits may be contacted for the cause. ....

U.S. Treasury teaches 'Islamic Finance 101'

(Compiler's note: A must read. rca)

By Chelsea Schilling


Advisers, scholars to promote controversial Shariah funding

The Treasury Department has announced it will teach "Islamic finance" to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch tomorrow in Washington, D.C. – but critics say it is opening a door to American funding of Islamic extremism.

'Islamic Finance 101'

According to its announcement, the "Islamic Finance 101" forum is "designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry."

The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University's Islamic Finance Project to coordinate the event. The department says it expects about 100 people will attend the seminar.

Some speakers include Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Neel Kashkari, senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr.; Harvard Business School professor Samuel Hayes; Mahmoud El-Gamal, chair of Islamic economics, finance and management at Rice University and Islamic finance adviser to the Treasury Department; Sarah Bell of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, Shariah adviser and Islamic scholar; Michael McMillan, chair of the Islamic Legal Forum at the American Bar Association and professor of Islamic finance; and Rushdi Siddiqui, global director for the Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes and vigorous advocate for Islamic finance.

Islamic finance is a system of banking consistent with the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. It is becoming increasingly popular, having reached $800 billion by mid-2007 and growing at more than 15 percent each year. Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index. However, critics claim anti-American terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments – creating a system by which the nation funds its own enemy.

Aiding the enemy

In his essay, "Financial Jihad: What Americans Need to Know," Vice President Christopher Holden of the Center for Security Policy writes, "America is losing the financial war on terror because Wall Street is embracing a subversive enemy ideology on one hand and providing corporate life support to state sponsors of terrorism on the other hand."

Holden refers to Islamic finance, or "Shariah-Compliant Finance" as a "modern-day Trojan horse" infiltrating the U.S. He said it poses a threat to the U.S. because it seeks to legitimize Shariah – a man-made medieval doctrine that regulates every aspect of life for Muslims – and could ultimately change American life and laws.

Shariah-compliant finance is becoming a major movement, because American banks and investors are seeking wealth from oil profits in the Middle East. Some advocates claim Islamic finance is socially responsible because it bans investors from funding companies that sell or promote products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork.





WND
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
U.S. Treasury teaches 'Islamic Finance 101'
Advisers, scholars to promote controversial Shariah funding

Posted: November 05, 2008
10:45 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


U.S. Department of the Treasury

The Treasury Department has announced it will teach "Islamic finance" to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch tomorrow in Washington, D.C. – but critics say it is opening a door to American funding of Islamic extremism.

'Islamic Finance 101'

According to its announcement, the "Islamic Finance 101" forum is "designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry."

The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University's Islamic Finance Project to coordinate the event. The department says it expects about 100 people will attend the seminar.

Some speakers include Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Neel Kashkari, senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr.; Harvard Business School professor Samuel Hayes; Mahmoud El-Gamal, chair of Islamic economics, finance and management at Rice University and Islamic finance adviser to the Treasury Department; Sarah Bell of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, Shariah adviser and Islamic scholar; Michael McMillan, chair of the Islamic Legal Forum at the American Bar Association and professor of Islamic finance; and Rushdi Siddiqui, global director for the Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes and vigorous advocate for Islamic finance.

Islamic finance is a system of banking consistent with the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. It is becoming increasingly popular, having reached $800 billion by mid-2007 and growing at more than 15 percent each year. Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index. However, critics claim anti-American terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments – creating a system by which the nation funds its own enemy.

Aiding the enemy

In his essay, "Financial Jihad: What Americans Need to Know," Vice President Christopher Holden of the Center for Security Policy writes, "America is losing the financial war on terror because Wall Street is embracing a subversive enemy ideology on one hand and providing corporate life support to state sponsors of terrorism on the other hand."

Holden refers to Islamic finance, or "Shariah-Compliant Finance" as a "modern-day Trojan horse" infiltrating the U.S. He said it poses a threat to the U.S. because it seeks to legitimize Shariah – a man-made medieval doctrine that regulates every aspect of life for Muslims – and could ultimately change American life and laws.

Shariah-compliant finance is becoming a major movement, because American banks and investors are seeking wealth from oil profits in the Middle East. Some advocates claim Islamic finance is socially responsible because it bans investors from funding companies that sell or promote products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork.

However, Islamic financial institutions also require all industry participants to adhere to tenets of Shariah law. According to Nasser Suleiman's "Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking, "First and foremost, an Islamic organization must serve God. It must develop a distinctive corporate culture, the main purpose of which is to create a collective morality and spirituality which, when combined with the production of goods and services, sustains growth and the advancement of the Islamic way of life."

Three nations that rule 100 percent by Shariah law – Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan – hold some of the most horrific human rights records in the world, Holden said.

"This strongly suggests that Americans should strenuously resist anything associated with Shariah."

Tenets of Shariah

In his essay, "Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism," Alex Alexiev outlined the following tenets of Shariah taken from "The Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law":

  • A woman is eligible for only half of the inheritance of a man
  • A virgin may be married against her will by her father or grandfather
  • A woman may not leave the house without her husband's permission
  • A Muslim man may marry four women, including Christians and Jews; a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim
  • Beating an insubordinate wife is permissible
  • Female sexual mutilation is obligatory
  • Adultery [or the perception of adultery] is punished by death by stoning
  • Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
  • Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
  • Lying to infidels in time of jihad is permissible

'Useful idiots'

Alexiev writes that many Islamic financial institutions claim Shariah-Compliant Finance "derives its Islamic character from the strict observance of the ostensible Quranic prohibition of lending at interest, the imperative of almsgiving (zakat), avoidance of excessive uncertainty (gharar) and certain practices and products considered unlawful (haram) to Muslims …" However, he said, "[E]ven a casual examination of the reality of Islamic finance today reveals it to be a bogus concept practiced by deceptive ploys and disingenuous means by practitioners that are or should be aware of that, but remain predictably silent."

Shariah finance institutions that have funded militant Islamism for more than 30 years. Alexiev cites Islamic Development Bank's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Hamas in support of suicide bombing. Bank Al-Taqwa and other banks and charities run by Saudi billionaires have funded al-Qaida activities.

Additionally, Shariah law mandates that Muslims donate 2.5 percent of their annual incomes to charities – including jihadists. When 400 banks regularly contribute to such charities, potential financial sums can be virtually limitless.

If Western banks endorse Shariah, they will "end up becoming what Lenin called useful idiots or worse to the Islamists," Alexiev writes. "And it is a very thin line between that and outright complicity in the Islamist agenda."

Children Trained to Become Suicide Bombers in Lebanese Scout Camp

(Compiler's note: Sad indeed. rca)