Are American Mosques Promoting Hate Ideology?

Despite its limitations, this study highlights an ugly undercurrent in modern Islamic discourse that American-Muslims must openly confront.


A new study entitled “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques” was recently released by the conservative watchdog organization Freedom House. Whether the study is accurate or not, it will certainly invite greater governmental scrutiny on the American-Muslim community.

The stated purpose of the study is to “probe in detail the content of the Wahhabi ideology that the Saudi government has worked to propagate through books and other publications within [U.S.] borders.” Its conclusions and recommendations are of vital concern to the American Muslim community. The American-Muslim leadership in particular needs to analyze the study and to respond quickly and effectively.

If this study’s conclusions are accurate, then the American-Muslim community needs to undertake a monumental overhaul of its institutions and the management of its resources and infrastructure. On the other hand, if there are errors, inaccuracies, methodological problems or additional relevant facts not considered in the study, then it behooves the American-Muslim leadership to correct the record. In either case, the failure to act by American-Muslims will be extremely deleterious to the community’s safety and well-being.

Who Is Behind The Study?

The study was done by Freedom House and its Center for Religious Freedom. Freedom House describes itself as a non-partisan, non-profit organization working to advance worldwide economic and political freedom. It is headquartered in New York City.

Founded over 60 years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Wilkie and others, today it is led by a board of trustees that includes, among others, R. James Woolsey (former CIA Director), Steve Forbes Jr. (President of Forbes, Inc.), Samuel Huntington (Harvard professor), Farooq Kathwari (President of Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc.), Jeane Kirkpatrick (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. ), Mara Liasson (NPR White House Correspondent), Azar Nafisi (Johns Hopkins University professor), P.J. O’Rourke (journalist), and Bill Richardson (Governor of New New Mexico).

The “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques” study was funded by two foundations. The first is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is a private grant-making organization founded in 1985. According to the Foundation’s website it is “devoted to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles and values that sustain and nurture it” and its “programs support limited, competent government; a dynamic marketplace for economic, intellectual, and cultural activity; and a vigorous defense at home and abroad of American ideas and institutions.”

However, Mark O’Keefe of Newhouse News Service reported about the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation as follows: “Name a conservative idea – whether it’s school vouchers, faith-based initiatives or the premise that there’s a worldwide clash of civilizations – and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is apt to have its fingerprints on it.”

Furthermore, In June 2003 Salim Muwakkil of In These Times wrote that the “Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation has been the economic fount for the neoconservative notions of global affairs now ascendant in the Bush administration” and that “[a]ccording to a report by Media Transparency, from 1995 to 2001 the Milwaukee-based foundation provided about $14.5 million to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the think tank most responsible for incubating and nourishing the ideas of the neocon movement.”

The JM Foundation is reported as the other source of funding. JM Foundation is headquartered in New York City. Its stated objective is to “encourage market-oriented public policy solutions; to enhance America’s unique system of free enterprise, entrepreneurship, private property ownership, and voluntarism; and to strengthen American families.” Many of JM Foundation’s other grant recipients can also be found in People for the American Way’s “Right Wing Watch” list.

How Did They Do The Study?

By its own admission the study is not a general survey of American mosques. In fact, it actually looked at only 15 mosques throughout the United States. No explanation has been proffered as to how these particular mosques were targeted.

The libraries and book collections of the selected mosques were inspected in November and December 2003 and again in December 2004. Seven of these mosques were on the East Coast (NY, NJ, D.C., VA). Three mosques identified in this study were from Texas. On the West Coast there were four mosques in California. From the Midwest there was only one mosque from Illinois in the study. The report includes a list of the mosques and their respective addresses.

Some 200 books and publications were collected. However, only 57 of these books and publications were used in the study. All of the 57 books and publications used in this study were written in Arabic or English. In the case of the Arabic literature, the texts were translated into English. Interestingly, the translators identities are withheld. This is reportedly for safety considerations. The study includes a bibliography of the books and publications used.

In addition to the texts, the study cites newspaper and magazine reports, books and journal articles, interviews and online resources. Some of the more interesting and or well known individuals cited include Khalid Du’ran, Stephen Emerson, Stephen Schwartz, Hisham Kabbani, Cheryl Benard and Fouad Ajami. The study’s report includes four pages of citation notes.

What Did These Books and Publications Say?

The cited materials are, as a matter of fact, extreme, incendiary and vitriolic. The study divided the subject matter of these books and publications into 7 categories of “hate ideology”. The categories are: (1) Christians, Jews and Other “Infidels”, (2) Jews, (3) Other Muslims, (4) Anti-American, (5) Infidel Conspiracies, (6) Jihad Ideology, and (7) Suppression of Women.

One document states that it is a Muslim’s duty to cultivate enmity between oneself and unbelievers and that hatred of unbelievers is proof that the Muslim has completed disassociated himself from the unbelievers. Another document state’s that Muslims may have non-Muslim domestic workers in their homes, but that the Muslims must hate their “infidel” domestic workers and not treat them as they would another Muslim.

The study cites many other, similarly obnoxious pronouncements such as the prohibition of Muslims initiating greetings with non-Muslims and the prohibition of Muslims greeting non-Muslims on their holidays. However, the study also cites to some other, more serious examples of hate in which Muslims are commanded to “spill blood” of infidels and apostates.

The Study’s Conclusions & Recommendations

The study concluded that American mosques are filled with Saudi publications that promote hate ideology. All of the books and publications were found to have some connection to Saudi Arabia. According to the study, these publications advanced a “dualistic world view in which there exist two antagonistic realms or abodes that can never be reconciled � Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Har, or Abode of War�and that when Muslims are in the latter, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines.”

The study also concluded that these publications “pose a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself.” The study further found that the “spread of Islamic extremism, such as Wahabbism, is the most serious ideological challenge of our times” and that “[t]he Saudis’ totalitarian doctrine of religious hatred � now planted in many America mosques � is inimical to our tolerant culture, and undermines the war on terrorism by providing the intellectual foundation for a new generation of Islamic extremists.”

Preempting any constitutional defense that might be proffered from “marketplace of ideas” types, the study places these Saudi publications outside of First Amendment protection. The study argues that these publications are beyond even protected hate speech because “it is a totalitarian ideology that can incite to violence.” Given the strong language used in the report, one might fully expect that the study calls these documents a clear and present danger to the United States.

The study makes several recommendations based on its conclusions. First and foremost, the study recommends that the United States “take into consideration the high-stakes struggle over ideology within Islam and the central role Saudi Arabia continues to play in it” when formulating foreign policy.

Other recommendations include: (1) an “official study of the Saudi export of hate ideology around the world”, (2) “an official protest at the highest levels of the Saudi government about its publications and fatwas lining the shelves of some of our most important mosques”, (3) a call for “mosque leaders to remove these hateful publications and materials” and (4) a call for “private sources of financing” to replace the Saudi publications in American mosques with “textbooks and tracts that emphasize religious toleration and the principles of individual religious freedom and other basic human rights.”


The study clearly shows that these 15 American mosques included some very hateful books in its libraries. However, to suggest that all American mosques are filled with such publications is a stretch. While the title does not technically use the phrase “All American Mosques”, the implication is evident.

The concern is that these “hate ideology” tracts are influencing American-Muslims. However, this is probably not likely since, as the study found, 90 percent of the books and publications found were written in Arabic. The majority of American-Muslims are not of Arab descent and certainly a majority of American-Muslims do not read and understand Arabic. So, even as these books sat on bookshelves in the 15 mosque libraries, very few people could actually read them.

The study did not assess or evaluate the other books in the mosque libraries it investigated. Were there other books and publications that espoused views different from those spotlighted in the study? After all, in the “marketplace of ideas” the best way to counter hateful ideas is to inject speech that counters and challenges such ideas. Another issue is the frequency with which these mosque libraries were actually used. These issues should have been addressed. They were not, and that certainly has an impact on the credibility of the study’s conclusions and recommendations.

Another problem with this study is its uncritical inclusion of Hisham Kabbani and Stephen Schwartz’s claims that 80 to 85 percent of American mosques are controlled by Wahabbis. This claim is unsubstantiated.

As a matter of fact, there is good reason to believe that radical, salafist/wahabbi views represent a very small segment of the American-Muslim community. In the summer of 2004, several months prior to the release of the Freedom House study, the “Detroit Mosque Study” by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding found that only 6 percent of Detroit’s mosque-attending population espoused salafist/wahabbi views. In fact, the study concluded that the vast majority of Ameican-Muslims eschew extremist views.

ISPU’s “Detroit Mosque Study” received significant media attention. It has even been favorably cited by the U.S. State Department. The “Detroit Mosque Study” certainly should have been considered by Freedom House in the interest of producing fair and balanced research.

The last concern is one that should resonate with critics who find nefarious undercurrents in the alleged presence of Saudi money in American-Muslim institutions. This study was funded by foundations that have clear right wing agendas. The cited experts have a history of being inimical to Islam in general and American-Muslims in particular. The lack of balance puts significant portions of the study under a dubious light.

American-Muslim leaders must thoroughly scrutinize this study. Despite its limitations, the study highlights an ugly undercurrent in modern Islamic discourse that American-Muslims must openly confront. However, in the vigor to expose strains of extremism, we must not forget that open discussion is the best tool to debunk the extremist literature rather than a suppression of First Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Junaid M. Afeef is an attorney & an ISPU Research Associate. Junaid can be reached via email at junaid.afeef@gmail.com


Please see:

Saudi Educational Materials

Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques
Edited by Nina Shea — January, 2005

Saudi Arabia’s Curriculum of Intolerance
with Excerpts from Saudi Ministry of Education Textbooks for Islamic Studies
by Nina Shea — May, 2006

Saudi Curriculum Excerpts
Arabic with English Translation
May, 2006

This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)
by Nina Shea
The Washington Post — May 21, 2006




10 Responses to “Are American Mosques Promoting Hate Ideology?”

  1. November 30, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    The assessment of the report was wrong on one significant point. That the “neo-con” performed the study and published the result that the hate writings were coming from Saudi actually strengthens the likelihood of it being true. The “neo-con” Right has strong ties to Saudi; if they’re complaining then there is a problem.

  2. November 30, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    Yes jonalan, there is a problem

    The Bush administration is usually complimentary towards Saudi efforts to fight “terrorism” because Saudi Arabia alone controls 27 percent of the world’s oil supplies.

    Middle Eastern countries supplied about 20 percent of U.S. oil needs in 2002, according to the US Department of Energy.

    To date, the Saudis alone have invested approximately 70 billion dollars around the globe, 60% of which was invested in the United States. Saudi Arabian investments in the United States have traditionally been a welcome counterweight to the systemic U.S. trade deficit with the Kingdom.

    As American demand for Saudi oil continues at 1.5 million barrels per day, U.S. service and merchandise exports revenues to the Kingdom cover nowhere near the level of expenditures for petroleum. One enabler of U.S. consumption has been the historic Saudi Arabian willingness to finance this trade deficit by investing in the United States.

    This relationship, while symbiotic, and necessary to a U.S. economy addicted to consumption, is viewed by many as “golden hand-cuffs” voluntarily worn by the United States.

    please read

    August 6, 2002

    August 11, 2002

  3. 3 opit
    December 1, 2007 at 4:16 am

    Jonolan has to be one of the most industrious ‘trolls’ I have ever had occasion to meet.
    The ‘study’ is a sham of disinformation: part of a general program of organized propaganda and hate-mongering being fed the American public. I would go so far as to suspect the ‘teddy bear’ nonsense to be of a kind with Queen E honoring Salomon Rushdie or the Danish cartoons.
    The Center for Media and Democracy is a place to check validity of organized disinformation : certainly part of the reason for demonstrations this week in Canada and the U.S. about corporate control of public information dissemination. The whole Fox organization is a cynical manipulation of the public. ‘Fox Attacks’ has the easiest info on that.The rest are not far behind : and it’s old news. Nov 30 RSS Review at my place actually just ran some of that debate : the links should be easy to pick out. If you can’t find them – holler. I’ll see what I can do.

  4. December 1, 2007 at 4:32 pm


    If a biased group publishes a report that is detrimental to their own affiliations – Saudi in this case – one has to, if not give credence to the report, at least review it instead of dismissing it out of hand.

    Stefan makes a valid point though in his post – just because the books are there does mean they’re being read since there’s a language gap.

    It’s a shame, opit, that you hate merica so much. Have you thought of moving?

  5. 5 opit
    December 1, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Read much ? Hating Merica : hate song of the neocon. Hate truth and freedom much z?

  6. December 1, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    I love the truth and such for it, unlike some people who prefer to just push someone’s agenda forward. I love freedom as well and do not see why you’d question that. In all likelihood I read more than most, that is why many do not like like my opinions; opinions based on reasoned interpretation of a multitude of sources with the bias of those sources acknowledged seems to be unpopular with many in the blogsphere.

    Sorry, for the ranting, Stefan. Opit’s been insulting on so many blogs it’s getting under my skin. I’ll try to do my part in keeping his rants against me off your posts.

  7. 7 Mesbah Uddin
    December 4, 2007 at 7:51 pm


    It is really consoling to notice that two of my previously published articles (Sunnah and Sharia Laws) have been chosen by you for displaying in your recently lunched website. I am exceedingly delighted to see that my senses about the existing Islam must have sparkled many minds who perhaps supported identical thoughts but didn’t express in written form for the fear of being ostracised or condemned to death.

    You might wish to incorporate another article of mine, titled: The Idolatry That has Sneaked Into Islam.

    Here is the link:



  8. December 4, 2007 at 11:00 pm

    Dear Mesbah Uddin,

    First of all, let me welcome you to Truthbooth Online. Your contributions will be, as they already have been, of great value to this website.

    I first came across your name when I stumbled across a link to one of your articles on Sunnah.


    It was about the effects of the Sunnah dogma on Islam. It was very interesting and well-written, attributes that were even more amplified in the rest of your articles that you have written.

    Indeed, your very articulate and well-versed articles transmit information and paint very clear pictures. You simplify points that are often very complicated and ambiguous in such a way that enables any reader, specialized or not, to comprehend.

    Moreover, your choice of topics are very significant as you touch up on some major themes that pollute the Islamic world today.

    You will find that I have posted the article you have referred to me. I encourage you to continue to contribute whenever possible to this site.

    I remain at your disposal if there is ever any service I can render.

    Stefan 😀

  9. February 27, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    Thanks on your marvelous posting! I definitely enjoyed reading
    it, you are a great author. I will always bookmark your blog and will often come back very soon.
    I want to encourage you continue your great work, have a nice afternoon!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Stefan Rosty Founded TruthBooth22.04.07

  • 477,224 hitz

“Virtual Insanity”

That's not nature's way Well that's what they said yesterday There's nothing left to do but pray I think it's time I found a new religion Waoh - it's so insane To synthesize another strain There's something in these Futures that we have to be told. JAMIROQUAI

RSS Genuine Islam

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

trashcontentz (by day)

November 2007
« Oct   Dec »

trashcontentz (by month)


RSS 9-11 News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS RationalReality.com

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Selves and Others

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS المؤلف: احمد صبحي منصور


%d bloggers like this: