A conference scheduled for Labor Day weekend in Detroit, hosted by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), is drawing criticism for featuring speakers accused of extremist views and advocating for the Islamization of the United States. Among the scheduled speakers is Abdul El-Sayed, a Michigan Senate hopeful, who is set to address the 63rd annual convention.
ISNA has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in a past terrorism-funding trial, according to reports. Other speakers at the event include Siraj Wahhaj, a former ISNA vice-president who was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj has reportedly called for the full implementation of Sharia law, including strict punishments, and has stated that political involvement is a tool for the cause of Islam. Another participant, Zaid Shakir, has been quoted as saying that Muslims could "take over the United States" and replace its government with a caliphate through political organization and resource marshaling.
Concerns have been raised about how such individuals have been platformed annually and allowed to operate institutions perceived as threats to the state. These issues echo warnings from two decades ago about the steady Islamization of Britain, as detailed in the book "Londonistan." The author of that work described how the British establishment allegedly downplayed the threat of Islamic extremism, attributing it to factors other than religious and cultural influences, and failed to recognize the strategy of mass immigration and political infiltration by extremists.
The article draws parallels between the situation in Britain and current trends in the United States, citing the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City and his photographed association with Imam Siraj Wahhaj. It also notes the growth of Muslim communities in areas like Dearborn, Michigan, and Texas, suggesting that a disproportionate rate of extremism and political engagement among a minority population could be influential. The possibility of an "Islamist in the White House" is presented as a concerning, though not entirely fanciful, prospect.
However, the article posits that the United States is better positioned than Britain to resist such trends, noting that parts of the U.S. are actively fighting back. Examples cited include state-level efforts to ban or restrict Sharia law and investigations into Muslim institutions in Texas. The piece concludes with a warning that time is running out for America to address these perceived threats, comparing the situation to a frog slowly boiling in water.