So with the HLF 1.0 trial’s appeal process now complete and no moreHLF-associated “US Muslim Brotherhood” trials coming, an honest and frank discussion should publicly happen between all the parties soour country can move forward.
Mohamed Elibiary’s willingness—however expedient, transitory or insincere it mayhave been—to acknowledge “legitimate national security concerns” about the Brotherhood’s networks puts him at odds with most of his ideological allies in Muslim activism—and, indeed, the mainstream media and far-left activists as well. They default toviewing the mountains of court-admitted evidence of the Brotherhood’s web of influence in America as little more than a conspiracy theory. As we shall see, however, he seems perfectly prepared later in the interview to embrace this narrative and use it as acudgel against his critics.
Turning to “Islamophobia,” this term is all too often used as a political weapon andfundraising appeal. Of course, there have been some incidents of discrimination andhatred towards Muslims. But the sustained use of the “Islamophobia” term was beingused by Islamists long before September 11, 2001.55
In fact, according to Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of an influential US Muslim Brotherhood entity called the International Institute of IslamicThought (IIIT), he attended a group meeting in the early 1990s where the Islamistspresent discussed using the term against their opponents. He later said, “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowelsof Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” 56
It is instructive that Mohamed Elibiary is perfectly prepared to use Islamophobiatoward that end.
