MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD & CAIR, DOMESTIC HATE GROUPS?

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IS ON A WORLD WIDE JIHAD. USA IS ON THE MENU.

Hypothesis:The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) meet the functional and legal characteristics of a U.S. “hate group” under civil-rights, conspiracy, and racketeering frameworks, analogous (but not identical) to KKK-style treatment.

I. LEGAL STANDARD (WHAT MUST BE SHOWN)

Because “hate group” is not a formal statutory designation, the evidentiary burden is to establish:

1. Ideological hostility toward a protected class or constitutional order

2. Organized activity to interfere with civil rights

3. Patterned conduct (not isolated speech)

4. Institutional continuity and coordination

5. Use of intimidation, coercion, or legal harassment

6. Predicate acts recognized in U.S. law

This mirrors how courts have treated:

• KKK

• Aryan Nations

• Neo-Nazi groups

• Communist front organizations (Cold War era)

II. PRIMARY FEDERAL EVIDENCE (ADMISSIBLE & TESTED)

A. Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Trial — FOUNDATIONAL EVIDENCE

U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, N.D. Texas

This case is not optional—it is the cornerstone.

Key admissible findings:

• Muslim Brotherhood operated in the U.S. via a “Palestine Committee”

• Committee purpose: support Hamas through lawful-appearing institutions

• CAIR identified in government exhibits as an entity arising from this network

• Internal MB documents admitted as evidence:

  • Explicit language about “civilization jihad”

  • Objective: “destroy Western civilization from within”

Why this matters legally:

• These are judicial findings, not allegations

• MB ideology is not speculative

• CAIR lineage is documented, not inferred

➡ This satisfies organizational continuity and intent.

B. FBI Severance of Formal Ties with CAIR (2008)

Facts:

• FBI formally cut outreach relations with CAIR

• Stated reason: CAIR named as unindicted co-conspirator in HLF

Legal significance:

• Government action based on risk assessment

• Demonstrates credible federal concern

• Analogous to FBI treatment of white supremacist “front groups”

➡ Establishes law-enforcement recognition of extremist linkage

C. Material Support Framework (18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A/B)

While CAIR is not designated an FTO, the MB:

• Is designated or banned in multiple allied jurisdictions

• Serves as the parent ideological organization of Hamas

U.S. courts allow:

• Pattern evidence

• Foreign designation as probative, not dispositive

• Ideological alignment evidence

➡ Allows MB ideology to be treated as extremist doctrine, even without FTO status.

III. CIVIL-RIGHTS & “HATE GROUP” ANALOGUES

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) — Civil Rights Conspiracy

Elements:

1. Conspiracy

2. Motivated by class-based animus

3. To deprive persons of equal protection or privileges

Applicable conduct:

• Coordinated legal intimidation

• Targeting school districts, teachers, parents

• Use of harassment litigation to suppress speech

• Disparate treatment demands under “religious exception”

➡ Courts have historically applied this statute to:

• KKK

• Militant ideological organizations

• Political intimidation groups

B. RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.)

Not terrorism-dependent

Requires:

• Enterprise

• Pattern of racketeering activity

• Use of legal entities to further unlawful objectives

Potential predicate acts:

• Mail/wire fraud (misrepresentation of purpose)

• Obstruction of justice

• Witness intimidation (legal harassment)

• Funding channel obfuscation

➡ RICO was used successfully against:

• KKK

• Mafia

• Radical political networks

IV. EDUCATIONAL INTERFERENCE AS EVIDENCE OF CONDUCT

A. Public School System Activity

Legally relevant because:

• Schools are state actors

• Students are a protected class

• Curriculum capture implicates Establishment Clause

Evidence categories:

• Attempts to impose Sharia-based norms

• Suppression of criticism via intimidation

• Coercive “cultural accommodation” demands

• Litigation threats to silence parents

➡ Analogous to:

• KKK intimidation of integrated schools

• Communist Party infiltration cases (1940s–50s)

V. STATE-LEVEL AUTHORITY (FLORIDA & TEXAS)

A. Florida

• Broad state police power

• State RICO statute

• Anti-terror financing statutes

• Authority to regulate school curriculum and access

Florida can legally:

• Declare CAIR an unacceptable government partner

• Bar access to public institutions

• Investigate under state racketeering laws

• Treat CAIR as civil-rights interference entity

B. Texas

• Venue of HLF trial (jurisdictional advantage)

• Strong charitable-fraud enforcement

• State anti-terror cooperation statutes

Texas can:

• Reopen investigative findings

• Treat MB-linked entities as hostile foreign influence

• Apply enhanced scrutiny to nonprofits

VI. WHY THIS MEETS “HATE GROUP” FUNCTIONAL TESTS

Criterion	MB / CAIR
Ideological hostility	Yes (documented MB doctrine)
Organized structure	Yes
Coordinated action	Yes
Civil-rights interference	Yes
Use of intimidation	Yes (legal harassment)
Front organizations	Yes
Patterned conduct	Yes
Judicial evidence	Yes

Key distinction:Unlike the KKK, MB/CAIR weaponize lawfare instead of violence, but U.S. law does not require violence for hate-group treatment.

VII. DEFENSIVE ANTICIPATION (WHAT OPPOSITION WILL ARGUE)

Argument	Counter
“Free speech”	Conduct, not belief
“No FTO designation”	Not required
“Islamophobia”	Ideology ≠ religion
“Foreign media denies”	Excluded as advocacy
“No convictions”	Civil & RICO standards differ

VIII. CONCLUSION (COURT-SAFE)

Independent of foreign advocacy media, U.S. court records, sworn testimony, and government actions establish that the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR exhibit the organizational, ideological, and operational characteristics historically treated under U.S. law as hate-based extremist enterprises, justifying enhanced scrutiny, exclusion from public institutions, and civil-rights enforcement actions.