There have been questions about Mohamed Elibiary’s true allegiances for years. He was one of the speakers at a December 2004 conference in Dallas titled “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary.” The visionary in question was none other than the founding father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
When I questioned him about his appearance at such a conference, Elibiary claimed that he hadn’t known what kind of conference it was going to be, although he didn’t explain why he went ahead and appeared there anyway once he found out. Among those who found this explanation wanting was journalist Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News, whose skepticism angered Elibiary. The great moderate subsequently threatened Dreher, telling him: “Expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe.”
Yet despite all this, Elibiary still got his appointment to the DHS Advisory Council, and has now been promoted. Mohamed Elibiary has risen as far as he has without ever being properly vetted because government and law enforcement officials, and the media, are so avid to find a moderate Muslim who will stand against Islamic jihad terrorism that they will accept virtually anyone’s claim to be just that, no questions asked.
“Senior DHS Adviser: ‘Inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ Returns,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, June 16, 2014:
A controversial senior adviser to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is receiving criticism for tweeting that the recent takeover of Iraqi cities by a violent terror group is proof that a Muslim “caliphate” is making an “inevitable” return.
Mohamed Elibiary, a controversial figure and member of DHS’s Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), discussed what he described as the “inevitable” return of a Muslim caliphate Friday on Twitter.
“As I’ve said b4 inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ returns,” Elibiary tweeted in response to a question about the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which is currently seeking to overthrow the Iraqi government and instate strict Sharia law in the country.
“Choice only whether we support [European Union] like Muslim Union vision or not,” wrote Elibiary, who has “advised numerous federal, state and local law enforcement organizations on homeland security-related matter,” according to his biography on DHS’s website.
Elibiary has come under heavy criticism in the past for claiming that America is “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.” Critics have said that such rhetoric makes him unfit to serve as an adviser for DHS, which is tasked with defending the U.S. border from terrorism.
Elibiary, in his more recent comments, went on to claims that conservatives “misread” the 9/11 terror attacks and “should reassess” their “belligerence.”
The discussion began with Elibiary mocking CNN for reporting on ISIS’s implementation of strict Islamic guidelines in the Iraqi territories it has seized.
“CNN just broadcast list of ISIS hudod [restrictions] rules,” Elibiary tweeted. “Reminds me of how we were outraged pre 9/11 by Taliban banning white socks 4 women.”
The remark prompted Twitter user David Reaboi, a former official with the national security group Center for Security Policy (CSP), to ask Elibiary if ISIS’s actions should prompt outrage in the United States.
That led Elibiary to claim that it is “inevitable” that a caliphate return.
“So you’re in favor of supporting that ‘inevitable’ Caliphate or not?” Reaboi asked.
Elibiary responded that the United States is moving to engage with radical Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and others.
“As I’ve stated b4. Y’all in the [national security] ubber hawks camp misread 9/11 & should reassess ur belligerence,” wrote Elibiary, who claims that his tweets reflect on his personal opinion.
Elibiary has a history of making controversial remarks on Twitter.
In November of last year he faced a fierce backlash from critics for saying that he considers America to be “an Islamic country.”
Elibiary also stated at the time that “sociologically speaking” the Christian right is “similar” to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that he has described as “pragmatic” and “non-violent.”
Elibiary also has argued in the past that the Muslim Brotherhood poses no threat to the United States and once referred to former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi as “Egypt’s Mandela,” a reference to the recently deceased South African leader.
Elibiary’s controversial rhetoric and support for the Muslim Brotherhood has drawn criticism on Capitol Hill from lawmakers such as Reps. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) and Louie Gohmert (R., Texas).
Elibiary also has experienced financial difficulties with his non-profit group, the Freedom and Justice Foundation, which had its non-profit status revoked by the IRS due to the organization’s refusal to file transparency forms revealing the sources of its funding….
Jaladhi says
And why is this guy a Senior DHS adviser or nay kind of adviser or even in the administration???
John C. Barile says
Why, indeed.
mariam rove says
why? Look who is in the White House…..m
DVult says
Why is he even in the country? Throw him out to wherever he came from.
pennant8 says
He is a DHS adviser because most Americans have never heard of him. The only people who are aware of him and others of his ilk are readers of this site and other similar ones. My guess is that his name has never even once appeared in any news article in your local paper or on on your local TV news.
Shane says
He is in the White House because Obama is a dhimmi who will not admit publicly that Islamic jihad is our true enemy, not terrorism. I don’t trust any faithful Muslim to put loyalty to country over loyalty to Islam, and since the goal of Islam is to dominate the world by establishing the Caliphate, no Muslim can be trusted.
A moderate Muslim is a Muslim who has run out of ammunition.
Ron says
Au contraire. Obama is not a dhimmi. He’s a follower of the Islamic world and a supporter of said caliphate. He was raised a Muslim, then went to a black liberation theology church, and embraced the philosophy that is totally in line with Muslim beginnings. And why he was elected twice are clearly complicit in the destruction of the greatest nation that was ever created: the United States of America.
Without question, he should be arrested for high crimes and misdemeanors, tried for treason and, if convicted, pay the ultimate price for his lies and criminal activity.
John C. Barile says
Elbiary is in the vanguard of those who want the whole world to be an Islamic paradise such as he imagines Seventh Century Arabia to have been. He just loooves mandatory hudud punishments–floggings, stonings, amputations, and beheadings–the world really ought to be that way in his mind. Allah knows– squat.
AnneM says
All of it based on a false prophet, a false religion, and a god who is simply is the devil.
Shane says
We must educate the world about the true nature of the founder of Islam as Robert Spencer has done in his book “The Truth About Muhammad.” Muhammad was a warlord, a mass murderer, a rapist, a liar, a womanizer, and a pedophile. Spencer documents all of this in his great book!
There is no way that a man like Muhammad could create a “Religion of Peace.”
Syd Chaden says
This guy is one of the Muslim Brotherhood members that Obama has appointed to his White House Advisory Council. Judging by Obama’s policies and actions, he takes their advice.
Jerome Rinebolt says
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1616
Islamisdeath says
Obama must be delighted! Its working! Its working! The little demon dances behind closed doors in his caliphate palace, the White House. Yes @kepha you are right Obama is a nihilist with strong muslim leanings. If the caliphate succeeds he wil go totally ass up muslim.
Shane says
I’m afraid most liberals would surrender and become Muslims rather than fight Islamic jihad. That is why I have little hope for Europe being able to escape being conquered by Islam.
Islamisdeath says
Obama must be delighted! Its working! Its working! The little demon dances behind closed doors in his caliphate palace, the White House. Yes @kepha you are right Obama is a nihilist with strong muslim leanings. If the caliphate succeeds he wil go totally ass up muslim.
Mirren10 says
“CNN just broadcast list of ISIS hudod [restrictions] rules,” Elibiary tweeted. “Reminds me of how we were outraged pre 9/11 by Taliban banning white socks 4 women”
Oh, how **ridiculous** of us to be outraged !
And now look at the end result of banning white socks for women.
He wouldn’t be sniggering if they’d banned white socks for men, and it morphed into the state of the women below.
http://media2.picsearch.com/is?b_EEoZmR_htoggh14xGxx4LTvKjbrM9WwvbQFtDoUGQ&height=227
How utterly sickening, unbelievable, that a traitorous scumbag like this should have **any** input into US policy, under any circumstances.
They are becoming more and more emboldened, everywhere. And why not ? None of the governments of the **civilised** world will do a damn thing to stand up to any of them, if they aren’t in fact complicit, and happily trousering huge bribes.
voegelinian says
He’s just a Tiny Minority of Extremists. Most Muslims are decent moms and pops whom we cannot round up and deport, says Philip Jihadski.
Wich says
If I were the western leader I would allow this so called caliphate to be nd collect all these caliphate lovers deport them to the peaceful and harmonious caliphate
Jaladhi says
Good one, lets see how many Muslims who complain about us would leave for this country from hell – Caliphate of whatever! Problem is they won’t leave but want to make this country under a caliphate.
Gary Fouse says
He was appointed by Napolitano.
gravenimage says
“As I’ve said b4 inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ returns,” Elibiary tweeted in response to a question about the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which is currently seeking to overthrow the Iraqi government and instate strict Sharia law in the country.
“Choice only whether we support [European Union] like Muslim Union vision or not,” wrote Elibiary
…………………………………
Unbelievable—claiming that the Caliphate is like *the European Union*. I have my quibbles with the EU, certainly, but to compare what is essentially a voluntary association with *the savage invasion and conquest* of ISIS incursion is utter madness.
And last I checked, the EU wasn’t lining the streets of member state’s cities with *severed heads*, either…
What stuns me is that Elibiary isn’t talking about some implausibly theoretical peaceful Caliphate, but the *actual bloody terror state* that is being carved out of Iraq and Syria—unbelievably brazen.
More:
Elibiary, in his more recent comments, went on to claims that conservatives “misread” the 9/11 terror attacks and “should reassess” their “belligerence.”
…………………………………
Of course—nothing belligerent about murdering *almost 3000 innocent people*—just in considering any opposition to such Jihad terrorism. Unbelievable…
More:
The discussion began with Elibiary mocking CNN for reporting on ISIS’s implementation of strict Islamic guidelines in the Iraqi territories it has seized.
“CNN just broadcast list of ISIS hudod [restrictions] rules,” Elibiary tweeted. “Reminds me of how we were outraged pre 9/11 by Taliban banning white socks 4 women.”
…………………………………
Also unbelievable—the Taliban forcibly immured women *in Burqas*, and had them stoned to death in streets of Kabul.
To sneeringly characterize this as “banning white socks” is simply grotesque.
More:
The remark prompted Twitter user David Reaboi, a former official with the national security group Center for Security Policy (CSP), to ask Elibiary if ISIS’s actions should prompt outrage in the United States.
That led Elibiary to claim that it is “inevitable” that a caliphate return.
“So you’re in favor of supporting that ‘inevitable’ Caliphate or not?” Reaboi asked.
Elibiary responded that the United States is moving to engage with radical Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and others.
“As I’ve stated b4. Y’all in the [national security] ubber hawks camp misread 9/11 & should reassess ur belligerence,” wrote Elibiary, who claims that his tweets reflect on his personal opinion.
…………………………………
He doesn’t say quite how those “ubber (sic) hawks” “misread” 9/11—but it’s pretty clear that he believes the proper Infidel reaction is *complete and utter submission*.
How the hell did this Muslim supremacist ever wind up involved with the Department of Homeland Security? He isn’t even bothering with Taqiyya…
More:
Elibiary has a history of making controversial remarks on Twitter.
In November of last year he faced a fierce backlash from critics for saying that he considers America to be “an Islamic country.”
…………………………………
We’ve heard this before, from Shari’ah supporters like Imam Rauf of Ground Zero Mosque infamy—in effect they are saying that they can take advantage of the combination of America’s naïvité and freedom of religion laws to subjugate us outright.
More:
Elibiary’s controversial rhetoric and support for the Muslim Brotherhood has drawn criticism on Capitol Hill from lawmakers such as Reps. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) and Louie Gohmert (R., Texas).
…………………………………
It’s good to know that *some* Americans in positions of authority are onto this creep…
dumbledoresarmy says
You noticed this – “Elibiary’s controversial rhetoric and support for the Muslim Brotherhood has drawn criticism on Capitol Hill from lawmakers such as Reps. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) and Louie Gohmert (R., Texas).”
and observed –
It’s good to know that *some* Americans in positions of authority are onto this creep…”.
Yep.
American jihadwatchers need to line up right behind Gohmert and Bachmann and PUSH. Let them know that you all approve of and share their misgivings about Elibiary.
Keep the pressure up. See if they and a few more other reps can be brought up to scratch. And then…maybe Elibiary and his ilk might get the boot.
London Jim says
That song – Dylan’s – ‘Bear Mountain Picnic’ keeps springing to mind when I read articles such as this.
Brian Hoff says
My Congressman is think that bring back the Caliphate run by the new Ottoman Empire Turkey. USA and other non-muslim nation can sign agreement with the Caliphate to end they war with Islam on fravour term to the Caliphate. You rightwing hater of Islam donot see clearly enought that than Caliphate will be remake either if like or not like it, it will happen.
Foolster says
End war with Islam? Oh, you mean Islam will stop attacking and persecuting non-Muslims? The calaphate will reconize Isreal’s right to exist?
Of course you don’t mean that, you mean they can”sign up’ to be Dhimis pay a tax and “feel subdued”, as the Quoran says. Meanwhile the calaphate will contenue the work of HAMAS in distributing blood libels and vicious attacks against Isreal and Jews. You know very well the many many attacks and atrocities commuted by Muslims, sanctioned by Mohammad himself. No thanks. You are a fascist.
Tom W Harris says
Drop dead, and make the world a better place.
Angemon says
Brian Hoff posted:
“My Congressman is think that bring back the Caliphate run by the new Ottoman Empire Turkey. USA and other non-muslim nation can sign agreement with the Caliphate to end they war with Islam on fravour term to the Caliphate.”
So, who’s your congressman? Because i’d like to send him/her a bundle of history books. Did you know that killing his brothers and half-brothers was a (almost) mandatory practice for newly elected sultans? And that newly elected sultans usually started new bloody, savage wars of conquest againt non-muslim nations because they were not muslims regardless of whichever treaties they had? After all, failure to do so meant that they weren’t complying with islamic orthodoxy – if muslims are in a position to do so they must wage war against non-muslims – and could give them a sudden case of knife in the throat.
Tells us, how can one trust the word of someone who is willing to murder his relatives and attack other nations just to assert their power, especially when the reasons behind it – islamic teachings – remain unchallenged and few are willing to even discuss them?
Also, what makes you believe that turkey is the “rightful” heir to your boner-inducing “new caliphate”? Turks are not even arabs and islam is a vehicle for spreading arab supremacy.
gravenimage says
The repulsive “Brian Hoff”—really, the old “DefenderofIslam”—wrote:
My Congressman is think that bring back the Caliphate run by the new Ottoman Empire Turkey. USA and other non-muslim nation can sign agreement with the Caliphate to end they war with Islam on fravour term to the Caliphate.
………………………………….
Firstly, this is not “they war with Islam”—it is Islam’s war *on us*.
Note, also, that “Brian Hoff” is—or claims to be, at any rate—an American, but by his phrasing makes if absolutely clear that he does not identify with the US in any way. And why should he? As a member of the Ummah, he is positively salivating over the specter of the revival of the bloody Caliphate.
For one thing, he is incapable of spelling simple English words, yet has *no* trouble spelling the somewhat difficult and unfamiliar (to many Americans) word “Caliphate”.
And what would “on fravour term to the Caliphate” look like?
That would be tribute from Infidel lands—just as it was before the young United States, then followed by other European powers, pushed back against Muslim savagery in the early 19th century in the Mediterranean.
And consider—that tribute was not always taken in money or treasure. Part of the tribute the Caliphate extracted in the Balkans and other places was *human*—women to fill the Sultan’s Harem, Janissaries to fight his bloody wars, and slaves to toil for him.
And if Infidels *didn’t* pay the tribute? Then more enslavement, taken in piracy and kidnapping to fill the slave markets of Dar-al-Islam.
Having our ships seized and crews enslaved was what brought us to fight islam for the first time—but this horror is what “DefenderofIslam” wants to see return.
And of course, it would still not really end there—any “agreement” would be nothing but a Hudna—a temporary measure where Muslims would consolidate their power before pushing on to new conquests. That’s one thing “Brian Hoff” won’t tell you—that under a Caliph Islam can wage offensive Jihad, and needn’t even present the vague fig-leaf necessary now, that Muslim aggression is “defensive”. The mask would come off entirely.
More:
You rightwing hater of Islam donot see clearly enought that than Caliphate will be remake either if like or not like it, it will happen.
………………………………….
Ah, yes—only a “rightwing hater” could have any problem with the incipient Caliphate—where women are pushed into Purdah, Christians are threatened and murdered and their churches burned, and the streets of Mosul are *lined with severed heads*.
*This* is “DefenderofIslam’s” vision for the remaking of the glorious Caliphate—a bloody, oppressive Shari’ah state taken at sword point. And why not? This is the vision *every* pious Muslim has. *Ugh*.
Tom W Harris says
“unfit to serve”? Unfit to live is more like it. Lynch the sumbitch.
Always On Watch says
How many different ways and how many times can we scream “Treason”?
We’re watching the West fall apart and submitting to Islam.
Thinking From First Principles says
Please think about whether or not having the Caliphate helps or hurts the counter-jihad movement.
Without the Caliphate, the OIC operates under the pretense of being independent sovereign states that simply “cooperate” and they have plausible deniability for the ongoing global jihad being waged by “non-state actors” that they support discreetly. This gives perfect cover for those in the non-Muslim world who want to remain in denial.
With the Caliphate, the pretense is lost. A Caliphate under the Quran as its constitution and Sharia as its law must and will expose the truth of core Islam as taught in the Quran, Sunna, and Hadiths … inclusive of an open and unending declaration of jihad against all that is not in Dar-al-Islam … and all of the Sharia laws that those in denial just can’t believe are true in this day and age.
In fact, the best foreign policy that non-Muslim states could undertake would be to withdraw recognition of all OIC states as independent sovereign states and singularly recognize the OIC as the Caliphate and as an entity in an openly declared war against all else.
The simple fact is that many are in denial because they are afraid of the implications. How shall we deal with it if there really is a nation of people (the Ummah) dedicated as an unchangeable and fundamental tenet of belief to the inexorable destruction by jihad of all that is not Islam?
Short of that, we need to run a vigorous campaign to declare ANY penalty for changing one’s religion as a crime against humanity … and to remove membership in the UN from any ‘state’ that maintains ANY penalty whether directly or by proxy through religious authorities. The tagline of a billboard might read “Free the Muslims” and the text might read “Freedom to choose one’s religious beliefs lies at the very core of humanity. It is a crime against humanity to do anything that impedes this freedom – whether through the law or intimidation by religious and community pressure. There is simply no way to sugar coat the command by the prophet of Islam that “If anyone should change his religion, then kill him.” It is a crime against humanity and completely indefensible. Free the Muslims by ending this and any other penalty for leaving Islam.”
gravenimage says
Thinking From First Principles wrote:
Please think about whether or not having the Caliphate helps or hurts the counter-jihad movement.
Without the Caliphate, the OIC operates under the pretense of being independent sovereign states that simply “cooperate” and they have plausible deniability for the ongoing global jihad being waged by “non-state actors” that they support discreetly. This gives perfect cover for those in the non-Muslim world who want to remain in denial.
With the Caliphate, the pretense is lost…
…………………………
I don’t imagine things would change much—at least initially—in how the West deals with Islam.
After all, we have *already* had clear examples of Muslim savagery—varying only in degree—from all of Dar-al-Islam.
And there is no saying that any Caliphate—again, initially—would necessarily immediately switch to fielding a traditional army—chances are they would continue to fund and support much of the “alphabet soup” of Jihad outfits we see today—after all, this is the case with entities like Pakistan and the “Palestinian Authority”—this gives them deniability, plausible or not.
I imagine if a Caliphate is formally established, we will hear the same old dhimmi bs we’ve heard for so long vis-a-vis terror outfits like Hamas—that they are mellowing, and that they want peace, and that they are now fixing potholes in the streets of Mosul rather than lining the streets with severed heads, blah blah blah.
If I really thought that the existence of a Caliphate would *finally* wake up the West, it would be different—but from everything I’ve seen, much of the West would probably continue its willful denial.
This is from a few years ago, but I believe it shows the extent to which many in the West—certainly most of those on the Left—are willing to go in order to lie to themselves about the nature of the Caliphate:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_timothy__061022_the_caliphate_and_th.htm
This moron actually claims that “dhimmi” in a Caliphate is a more respected and less derogatory term than than perfectly neutral terms like “minority” or “immigrant” in modern Britain.
This tool claims that fear of a Caliphate is just a conspiracy theory intended to elect Republicans…