[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
The imam of the New Orleans jihadi’s mosque, Eiad Soudan, according to the Jerusalem Post, “has accused Jews of using usury to exploit and take control of the economy wherever they went.” He also said that “Hitler hated the Banu Israil so bad, because of the economy thing, they were in control of the economy,” and added: “So those who say that only the Banu Israil paid the price — everybody paid the price, they say thousands of Muslims were killed.”
Eiad Soudan doesn’t want the world to limit its sympathies to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, when there are so many others, including Muslims, who suffered during the war. And besides, he tells us, the Jews’ rule over the world’s economy means there was a valid reason for the Nazis wanting to eliminate them.
The mosque Jabbar attended is not about to help in the investigation of Jabbar; it has asked is members not to respond to questions from the media. And if the FBI tries to interview any members of the mosque, they should not answer, but refer the FBI to the Council on American Islamic Relations, or to the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, whose leaders will know how to best handle — that is, explain away or deny altogether — any attempt to link them to Jabbar.
“Imam at mosque connected to New Orleans terrorist says Jews exploit usury to dominate economies,” Jerusalem Post, January
In another statement posted to social media following the New Orleans attack, the ISGH said that it was “horrified” by the event and condemned the “act of terror” as “pure evil.”
But why should the ISGH be”horrified” when one of its members does what the Qur’an commands, and proceeds to strike at and kill Disbelievers? What was it about Jabbar’s act that made it so “horrifying”? Was it, perhaps, the way his act has aroused, quite rightly, more suspicions about Muslims and the ideology of Islam? And if it was so horrifying, why did the ISGH not express at once its desire to cooperate fully with the FBI? Indeed, why did CAIR and ISGH balk at their members providing information about Jabbar’s attendance at his neighborhood mosque, the Masjid Bilal, including any signs that he took to heart certain violent verses in the Qur’an, or about the contents of the khutbas delivered by the Imam Eiad Soudan, whose virulent antisemitism was on display in the sermon he gave about Jewish financial power and the desire, he claimed, of all countries to keep the Jews in “Palestine,” a videotape of which MEMRI managed to obtain?
The ISGH also sent its condolences to the families of those killed, stated it was praying for the quick recovery of those hurt, and encouraged anyone with relevant knowledge to be in contact with law enforcement authorities.
The ISGH’s ostentatious display of sympathy for the victims, and its reversal of policy, by now calling on its own members to contact law enforcement authorities directly if they have any relevant information, does not jibe with its earlier statement, that directly contradicts that advice. Following the attack, media reports cited a social media post by Masjid Bilal, urging members not to respond to inquiries from the media. If approached by the FBI, the statement read, community members should refer to CAIR or ISGH. Now it is telling them to “be in contact with law enforcement authorities.” Clearly, it must have realized that its first remark — trying to prevent cooperation of its members with the police — had aroused such fury and suspicion that it had to reverse course.
And it did.
One hopes the police will take a careful look at what the Masjid Bilal’s imam preached, not just about the perfidious Jews, their usury, their power, but about other Infidels as well. One of the exceptions to the First Amendment right of free speech is the Brandenburg test (Brandenburg v. Ohio), which says that speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action”; and if it is “likely to incite or produce such action.” Let’s see if the Imam Soudan’s sermons sound as if they could well have contributed to the “imminent lawless action” of Shamsud-din Jabbar. And if so, could Imam Soudan be arrested for influencing Jabbar to commit mass murder?
Questions for study and discussion.