U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–130 PDF 2017

S. Hrg. 114–706 

THE IDEOLOGY OF ISIS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 21, 2016 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

DAVID S. LUCKEY, Director of Homeland Security 

ELIZABETH E. MCWHORTER, Senior Professional Staff Member 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

HARLAN C. GEER, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

ERIC K. HANSON, Minority U.S. Army Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BENJAMIN C. GRAZDA, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 16 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 17 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 19 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 21 

Senator Baldwin ............................................................................................... 23 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 25 

Senator Booker ................................................................................................. 26 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 35 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 36 

WITNESS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2016 

Hassan Hassan, Resident Fellow, Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, 

and Co-Author, ‘‘ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror’’ ............................................ 4 

Tarek Elgawhary, Ph.D., Director Religious Studies Programs, World Organization for Resource Development and Education .............................................. 6 

Subhi Nahas, Chairman of the Board, Spectra Project ........................................ 8 

Nadia Murad, Human Rights Activist ................................................................... 9 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Elgawhary, Tarek.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Hassan, Hassan: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 38 

Murad, Nadia: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

Nahas, Subhi: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

APPENDIX 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record 

Mr. Hassan ........................................................................................................ 83 

Mr. Elgawhary .................................................................................................. 85 

Mr. Nahas ......................................................................................................... 90 

Ms. Murad ......................................................................................................... 91 

(1) 

THE IDEOLOGY OF ISIS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2016 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, 

Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Baldwin, Heitkamp, Booker, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

We do have one witness who parked over at Union Station. He 

is making his way over here. I thought we would get going, and 

he can join us when he gets here. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing, for your time, and 

for your testimonies. 

The mission statement of this Committee—you have heard it, repeatedly, but I will repeat it again—is to enhance the economic and 

national security of America. On the homeland security side, one 

of our top four priorities is, certainly, doing whatever we can to 

keep our homeland safe—to counter Islamic terror. 

The goal of every hearing, from my standpoint—coming from a 

manufacturing background, I solved a lot of problems. The first 

step in solving a problem is admitting you have one—properly identifying it, defining it, but really facing reality. And so, the goal of 

every hearing is to lay out a reality, so that, certainly, the Members of the Committee and the people in the audience understand 

what we are dealing with, in terms of a particular problem. 

Today’s hearing is our eighth hearing dealing with some form or 

component of the threat we face from Islamic terror. It is a harsh 

reality. It is one I wish was not true. It is one I wish we did not 

have to face. But, we have to. 

We are going to be hearing testimonies today that will be hard 

to hear. It will be hard to hear, but they are testimonies that, I 

think, are incredibly important for us to hear. 
2 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

So, again, I thank the witnesses for appearing. I would ask that 

my written statement be entered into the record,1 without objection. 

It is important for us to understand that Islamic terrorists declared war on the United States. Quite honestly, Islamic terrorists 

declared war on the civilized world. We did not declare war on 

them. They declared war on us. 

I cannot exactly point to the date, but, certainly, one that is pretty visible was the first attempt to bring down the Twin Towers at 

the World Trade Center. That was on February 26, 1993. And, the 

fact that we did not face the full reality, right there and then, I 

think, eventually led to the fact that we then faced the tragedy of 

the attack on September 11, 2001 (9/11), a terrorist attack where 

almost 3,000 Americans were slaughtered. 

Now, there are two ways to end a war—only two ways: either one 

side defeats the other or both sides decide to lay down their arms. 

The tragic events of yet another terror attack, inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), on this country, in Orlando, 

Florida, has proven Islamic terrorists are not laying down their 

arms. So, the only way we are going to end this war and the only 

way we are going to keep our homeland safe and return peace to 

the civilized world, is if we defeat Islamic terrorists—if we defeat 

ISIS. 

Now, on September 10, 2014, President Obama laid out America’s goal, as it relates to ISIS. It is pretty simply stated: to degrade and, ultimately, defeat them. That was 22 months ago. 

In his testimony last week, before the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee (SFRC), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director 

John Brennan laid out the reality, as it relates to our success—or 

lack thereof—in our war on ISIS. And, he testified—and this is a 

quote—that ‘‘ISIS remains a formidable, resilient, and largely cohesive enemy,’’ and that ‘‘our efforts have not reduced [their] terrorism capability and their global reach.’’ 

Now, that is a depressing reality after 22 months, but it is a reality we have to face. 

Again, I just want to thank the witnesses. Do not hold back. Lay 

out the reality. Make sure that, certainly, the Senators on this 

dais, as well as the American people, understand the threat—the 

enemy we face—and why it is just crucial that we actually defeat 

them. I wish they would lay down their arms. I wish they would 

declare peace. But, it does not seem like that is going to happen. 

With that, I will turn it over to my Ranking Member, Senator 

Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, thank you for delaying this hearing for a week, so 

that our witnesses could be assembled and we could have more 

time to prepare. We welcome each of you. Thank you for coming 

and sharing with us your stories and your perspectives. They are 

valued, and we are delighted that you could come. 
3 

I want to just follow up, very briefly, on how the fight against 

ISIS is going. I went over a map of that part of the world, today, 

and the United States—and our coalition forces, which now number 

about 60 nations—have recaptured almost 50 percent of the land 

that ISIS once held in Iraq and in Syria. Almost 50 percent. I think 

we are up about 47 percent. ISIS has also lost 20 percent of the 

land it once held in Syria. Ramadi and Tikrit were key victories for 

the U.S.-backed Iraqi forces. And, last Friday, Iraqi forces—ground 

forces—captured the city center of Fallujah and are now working 

to clear out the last few pockets of resistance in that city. And, that 

is only about 20 miles to 25 miles west of Baghdad. 

As we speak, Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian democratic forces, 

backed by the U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF), are making 

preparations to retake ISIS’s key strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa. 

We have killed some 25,000 ISIS fighters and more than 120 key 

ISIS leaders. We have cut ISIS funds by a third or more. We have 

literally destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars in cash that they 

were hoarding, and we have reduced, by a dramatic amount, their 

ability to realize profits from oil reserves and resources in that part 

of the world. 

We have, drastically, slowed the flow of foreign recruits from a 

high of about 2,000 a month, in 2014, to 200 a month, today. And, 

that also goes for young Americans who have sought to travel and 

join ISIS. About 1 year ago, every month, about 10 Americans were 

leaving this country to join ISIS. Today, that number is one per 

month. And, at home, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) 

is cracking down on recruits as well. And, over the past 2 years, 

the FBI has arrested 88 individuals on ISIS-related charges. 

I was a naval flight officer (NFO) for 23 years—combined active 

and reserve duty. I served 5 years in a hot war in Southeast Asia— 

I know a little bit about fighting wars—and another 18 years, right 

up to the end of the Cold War, as a P–3 Orion aircraft mission commander. And, one of the ways we are going to win this fight is not 

by ourselves. There is not an appetite in this country for putting 

boots on the ground. But, there is an appetite for working with the 

coalition of countries, throughout the region and around the world, 

and that is what we are doing. And, I believe we are making 

progress. Is it perfect? Are we where we want to be? Is this where 

we want to go? No, it is not. But, I think we are making progress. 

The other thing I want to say is that, last Saturday, 9 days ago— 

10 days ago, my wife and I went up to New York. We have a son 

who lives in that area—in the city—and he took us, for Father’s 

Day and for his mom’s birthday, to the 9/11 Memorial Museum, 

which is located right on the location where the Twin Towers once 

stood. I was reminded there, as we saw the faces and the names 

and as we heard the voices of the family members of some of the 

3,000 people who died that day—I was reminded of the way we responded to that tragedy. In this room, we helped to create the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/ 

11 Commission). In this room, we received some 40 recommendations from the bipartisan group—the 9/11 Commission—presented 

to us by Tom Kean, former Governor of New Jersey, and presented 

to us by Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee—co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission. They presented 
4 

1The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 36. 

2The prepared statement of Mr. Hassan appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

to us, after months and months of work, some 40 recommendations 

that they came to, unanimously, on what we could do to reduce the 

likelihood that these kinds of attacks would occur again. We adopted, maybe, 80 percent of them—again, almost unanimously, and 

then set about implementing them. 

The response to that tragedy was bipartisan. It was a unified approach, and I think, ultimately, it has been successful. Ultimately, 

it has been successful. And, when you compare that response to the 

response to the tragedy in Orlando, it could not be more different. 

It could not be more different. 

My hope, today, is that we are going to have the kind of conversation, with all of you, that will enable us to better improve this 

fight—and this is a fight that we are going to win—the fight 

against ISIS. And, we have a lot of allies that happen to be, not 

just folks in this country and not just people who might be Catholic 

or Protestant, but people of all faiths, including the Muslim faith. 

And, together, we are going to prevail. 

Thank you so much. And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous 

consent, if I could, that the rest of my statement be entered into 

the record.1 Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will all rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Ms. MURAD. Yes. 

Mr. NAHAS. I do. 

Mr. HASSAN. I do. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Hassan Hassan. Mr. Hassan is an associate 

fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP). Mr. 

Hassan co-authored ‘‘ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror.’’ In 2008, he 

started working in Abu Dhabi in journalism and research, focusing 

on Syria, Iraq, and the Gulf States and studying Islamist, Salafist, 

and jihadist movements in the wider region. Mr. Hassan. 

TESTIMONY OF HASSAN HASSAN,2 RESIDENT FELLOW, TAHRIR 

INSTITUTE FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY, AND CO-AUTHOR, 

‘‘ISIS: INSIDE THE ARMY OF TERROR’’ 

Mr. HASSAN. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Carper, and Members of the Committee. 

By way of introduction, I also want to add that I come from an 

ISIS-controlled, area that is still controlled today. I have also interviewed dozens of ISIS members for my book and for other research. 

And, I want to say this: This is not a sectarian war. The very people that ISIS claims to represent are victims of its brutality just 

as much as everyone else. This is the reality felt on a daily basis. 

When family and friends go to the market and see severed heads 

on pipes, when ISIS condemns its Sunni opponents—people that 

they claim to represent—as apostates—they burn them alive, they 
5 

stab their hearts before they shoot them, and when they display 

their dead bodies for days in central squares—when it says to its 

fellow Sunnis, ‘‘It does not matter if you pray, if you fast on Ramadan, or if you turn your face toward Mecca and pray, we will still 

kill you as long as you do not pledge allegiance to us.’’ Not far from 

where I come from, in my area, called Deir Ezzor, ISIS killed 700 

Sunni villagers, in a matter of days, because they dared to stand 

up against the group. 

And, I want to move on to say that, as a belief system, those who 

believe in the sort of ISIS ideology are a minority, not only in the 

Muslim world but also within the group. During my research, I 

found that members come in six categories: 

One, longstanding religious radicals who deviate even from alQaeda. For example, they believe that there is no sanctity of life. 

Unlike al-Qaeda, which, for example, justifies killing civilians—but 

only as collateral damage—ISIS considers killing civilians, themselves, as the preferred outcome. In fact, just a month ago—exactly 

a month ago, the spokesperson for ISIS said—when he called for 

sympathizers in the West, in Europe, and in the United States to 

launch attacks, he said, ‘‘I receive complaints from people—sympathizers—saying we could not find military targets and we are 

afraid to kill civilians.’’ And, he said, ‘‘There is no such thing as innocent civilians in the West.’’ And, in fact, he moved on to say, ‘‘We 

prefer that you kill civilians.’’ And, he said, ‘‘I do not have time to 

justify that,’’ basically. He did not even give the justification during 

the statement. 

And, the second category of people who join ISIS are young zealots, who are victims of the first category—people who are between 

age 12 and 17, people who are drawn to this idea of a caliphate, 

and so on and so forth. They are brainwashed. They are taught 

Islam in a way that ISIS understands, which distorts a lot of 

things. And, because people do not have religious knowledge, they 

hear a lot about the events as well as the traditions that ISIS relates for the first time. 

And, there is a third category, which is very important: people 

who are drawn to ISIS’s political ideology—not religious one—and 

this is a major problem, not only within ISIS, but, I think, in the 

region—people who are drawn to this political ideology, not only for 

ISIS, but for al-Qaeda and for other Islamist groups, because they 

think there is political stagnation in the region and only these 

groups can actually shake up the political order in the region. 

And, I think Omar Mateen belongs to this category of people that 

are only superficially influenced by this organization. He, obviously, did not follow their way of life, but he was still animated, 

probably, by this idea of ISIS. 

The other categories are those who are drawn to the group because of its military success, its model of governance, an attraction 

to its brutality, or, simply, they are profiteers. But, the group—and 

this is important. The group swims in a sea of political failures in 

the region—and that is where we should focus. It is not a surprise, 

for example, that ISIS emerged in Iraq and in Syria, countries that 

suffered unimaginable brutality and violence over the past decade, 

in the case of Iraq, and half of a decade, in the case of Syria. 
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Elgawhary appears in the Appendix on page 74. 

The group has built its narrative around the idea of Sunni victimization. It benefitted from the brutal reality, in both Iraq and 

Syria, to say that Sunnis are, systematically, under attack by Iranian-backed militias or governments in those two countries, that 

the two greatest superpowers in the world are helping both of 

them, and that there are traitors—apostates, in other words—in 

our midst who help them. 

It is important—without downplaying the genocidal acts of 

ISIS—to highlight that the regime of Bashar al-Assad, in Damascus, had carried out almost all of the atrocities—probably, without 

an exception—that ISIS has committed even before ISIS arrived in 

Syria. In 2012, for example, pro-government militias in Syria 

stormed villages, slaughtered children and women, and smashed— 

using rocks—the heads of condemned people. 

I just want to conclude by saying and emphasizing that ISIS 

thrives in this context and should be defeated in this context in 

order to stem its international appeal. This can only happen at the 

hands of the very people that ISIS claims to represent. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Hassan. 

Our next witness is Dr. Tarek Elgawhary. Dr. Elgawhary is Director of Religious Studies Programs for the World Organization for 

Resource Development and Education (WORDE). Dr. Elgawhary 

also serves as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Coexist Corporation and as a trustee of the Coexist Foundation. He has a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) from Princeton in Islamic law and he 

studied traditional Islamic sciences at Al-Azhar Seminary in Cairo, 

Egypt. Dr. Elgawhary. 

TESTIMONY OF TAREK ELGAWHARY, PH.D.,1 DIRECTOR, RELIGIOUS STUDIES PROGRAMS, WORLD ORGANIZATION FOR 

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. Senator Johnson, Senator Carper, and other 

Members of the Committee, thank you very much for this opportunity. I would like to make very brief introductory remarks and, 

maybe, save the other discussion points for the question and answer portion. 

I would like to add to what Senator Johnson said, in the beginning, that, before ISIS or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 

(ISIL) and other related groups declared war on our homeland, 

they declared war on Islam. And, this is not only a threat to our 

homeland—not only a threat to our national security, but an existential threat to our religion. 

Normative Islam, in both its Sunni and Shia expressions, is defined by a very robust, interpretive methodology. That is what you 

go to seminary to be trained in. 

Very briefly, this interpretive methodology requires one to understand the divine text—to understand the text of the Quran and to 

understand the various statements of the prophet. There are 6,236 

verses in the Quran. There are about 60,000 to 70,000 prophetic 

texts and their different narrations. There are over 100,000 narrations of these prophetic texts. 
7 

Understanding the divine text means understanding about a 

dozen different sciences, beginning with Arabic grammar, syntax, 

morphology, and logic—all of these are different interpretive tools 

that we use to understand what the text actually means in the context in which it was revealed. 

The second thing is to understand the context that we live in 

now—the current moment—understanding full well that people 

change, times change, circumstance change, and location and place 

change. How does one fast the month of Ramadan in the northern 

latitudes, which the early Muslim generations never experienced? 

How do we deal with usury in the light of fiat currency—currency 

that is not backed by gold or silver bullion—and so on and so forth? 

So then, that further adds the idea that one needs to understand 

the current moment that we live in as well as its complexity and 

its changing. 

And then, the third aspect of this interpretive paradigm is, how 

do we link the divine text into the current moment in which we 

live—and that, as we were taught, is a talent. Not everyone is endowed with that type of talent. 

Violent and extremist groups, like ISIL, have no interpretation, 

whatsoever—nor do they have a fundamental understanding of 

Islam. They are unlettered warmongers who have, in essence, created a parallel religion. Yet, this parallel religion that they call to 

is no more Islamic than a pool with one lemon squeezed in it is 

lemonade. 

And, because of the gross misunderstanding of the primary text 

and because of their lack of a robust interpretive methodology, the 

good news is, we are able to identify what is so wrong with their 

thinking. And, in my work and in my analysis, I have been able 

to deduce about a half dozen or so main concepts that they have, 

and I have been able to trace them back to a certain cluster of 

sources that are used by every single Islamist extremist group from 

the middle of the 20th Century until our time, today. And, in that, 

I am able to isolate those concepts. We are able to provide a 

counter-narrative and deal with it. 

Now, I do not have an army at my disposal. I do not own any 

weapons, whatsoever. I leave that to law enforcement. What I do 

have is, I have my intellect and I have my scholarly training. And, 

I can employ that to provide a robust counter-narrative to inoculate 

our youth, to protect the next generation, and to make it absolutely, unequivocally clear that what ISIL represents and what 

they stand for has nothing to do with the religion, whatsoever. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Elgawhary. 

Our next witness is Subhi Nahas. Mr. Nahas is an activist for 

lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights, who fled 

Syria, in 2012, after receiving threats from soldiers and jihadists 

because of his sexual preference. Mr. Nahas fled, first to Lebanon 

and then to Turkey, where he applied at the United Nations (U.N.) 

for refugee status. He was granted refugee status after a year and 

has since moved to the United States. In August 2015, he testified 

before the United Nations Security Council’s summit on LGBT 

rights in Syria. Mr. Nahas. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Nahas appears in the Appendix on page 78. 

TESTIMONY OF SUBHI NAHAS,1 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, 

SPECTRA PROJECT 

Mr. NAHAS. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for offering me the honor 

and the opportunity to be here, today, to share my story in the context of the larger events happening around the world—and here in 

the United States. 

My personal story mirrors the stories of many other LGBT individuals. One day, I was heading to the university. An organized 

group of militants accosted and threatened me, solely because they 

perceived me as gay. 

In the local mosque, it had been announced that they would 

cleanse the city of all ‘‘sodomites.’’ ISIS had not yet been formed, 

yet militants and the regime targeted all gay men in the country. 

I fled from my home country of Syria in 2012. After living in Lebanon for 6 months, I moved to Turkey. 

My history of activism for LGBT rights meant that, even in Turkey, I once again found myself in danger. Extremist groups, like alQaeda and ISIS, were gaining strength and access there. Although 

I was employed for 2 years in a senior position with Save the Children International, I was still not safe because of my sexual identity. 

A Syrian friend informed me that I had been targeted for death. 

My director at Save the Children helped me register with the 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to be 

resettled to a safer country. 

Prior to my resettlement, I completed an extremely thorough 

screening process, which included testifying, under oath, in front of 

an officer from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), security checks, medical tests, and a cultural orientation. After this 10- 

month process, I was relocated to San Francisco, California. 

In August 2015, a few months after resettlement, I spoke before 

members of the U.N. Security Council about the threats to sexual 

minorities in the Middle East during a historic event organized by 

the United States and Chile. As I stated during the meeting and 

to the press, alongside Ambassador Samantha Power, ISIS is simply one of many threats to the LGBT community in the Middle 

East. 

Reports from recent refugees of Syria say that ISIS and other 

groups actively target gay people. It is enough just to be perceived 

as gay by them to be arrested, tortured, or raped. Then, this perceived gay person can be thrown off of a building to a cheerful 

crowd that will stone them to death if they are not dead. 

While ISIS is viewed, in the public eye, as the most notorious 

group in Syria and Iraq, it may come as a surprise that their methodology—when it comes to the treatment of LGBT people—is very 

similar to many other groups, including governments, themselves. 

We know that many groups, including ISIS, target and kill gay 

people in Syria. They just use different methods to kill. 

While good fortune has allowed me to begin a new, much safer 

life as a refugee in the United States, the recent event in Orlando 

shows that LGBT people still face huge challenges here. The ‘‘New 
9 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Murad appears in the Appendix on page 80. 

York Times’’ reported on June 16, ‘‘Even before the shooting rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

and transgender people were already the most likely targets of 

hate crimes in America, according to an analysis of data collected 

by the FBI.’’ 

Put simply, efforts to discredit the poisonous ideology of ISIS and 

other extremist groups—while extremely important—are insufficient to completely erase the threat of anti-LGBT violence, either 

here in this country or abroad. Rather, we must also commit to 

combating homophobia, xenophobia, and bigotry in all of its various 

forms, regardless of the source. 

In order to deal with these issues, I recommend two things: 

One, through the bridges and the convening power unique to the 

United Nations, support actions that promote, not only human 

rights for LGBT persons, but also love, inclusion, tolerance, and 

equality among religions and communities. This requires continued 

U.S. leadership at forums, like the U.N. Human Rights Council, 

and supporting funding for U.N. institutions, like the UNHCR. 

Statements, such as the one issued by the U.N. Security Council, 

on Monday, condemning the Orlando attack, are critical. This 

statement, specifically, denounced, for the first time, violence targeting people ‘‘as a result of their sexual orientation’’—and it received support from Russia and Egypt. This will make it more difficult for those countries and others to argue that sexual orientation is not a recognized international human right. 

Two, we need partnerships across communities that can address 

the serious negative consequences of ISIS’s ideology, including assisting the communities affected by it. For example, I have 

launched the Spectra Project, which assists LGBT refugees in the 

Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region by providing shelter 

and education, while also promoting, in the United States and 

abroad, a more positive image of LGBT people. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Nahas. 

Our final witness is Nadia Murad. Ms. Murad is a Yazidi rights 

activist and one of the thousands of Yazidi women who were abducted and enslaved by ISIS. Since her escape, Nadia has been outspoken about her experiences to draw attention to the ongoing 

genocide. Earlier this year, the Iraqi Government nominated her 

for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize. 

Ms. MURAD. And, I will mention that Murad, coincidentally, is 

her interpreter. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF NADIA MURAD,1 HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] Mr. Chairman and Senators, I am very 

grateful and very happy to be testifying among you. And, thank 

you for the opportunity. 

The first thing I would like to tell you is that I was heartbroken 

when I witnessed the crimes in Orlando, because, for the same reason—for no reason, they were killed and they were abused—just 

the way I was. 
10 

But, I was not surprised by this, because I knew, if ISIS was not 

stopped, they would deliver their crimes everywhere. 

When I was captured, I was 19 years old. I was one of the 6,000 

Yazidi women and children who were taken into captivity. 

This happened in August 2014—more than a year and a half ago, 

now—and ISIS attacked the Yazidis for one reason: because they 

are considered infidels, not ‘‘People of the Book.’’ And, their interpretation is that the men must be killed and the women and the 

children must be enslaved. 

And, this is what they applied to us. Thousands of men, women, 

and children were killed in the first day of the attack in Sinjar. In 

the hottest days of the summer, more than 100,000 Yazidis were 

stranded on the mountain. 

It is true that crimes were committed in Iraq and Syria, but 

what happened to the Yazidis was different. I was one of the girls 

who were enslaved in Mosul. I was one, among the thousands of 

women who were taken to Mosul. 

The first thing they did, in Mosul, after distributing us to the 

fighters, was to take us to the court and have us convert by putting 

our hand on the Quran. It is true that I was raped, sold, and 

abused, but I was lucky. I wish that everyone, from the 6,000 

women and children, was like me, because girls at the age of 9 

were raped as well. 

In only 2 hours, in my village, more than 700 men were killed. 

Among them were six of my brothers—and the same day my mother was killed, too, for no reason except for having a different religion. 

I am not saying that ISIS represents Islam, but ISIS is using 

Islam to commit these crimes. And, this needs to stop as an ideology, first. Many people in the area, they had the choice to leave 

when ISIS came, but they were happy to join ISIS, when they 

came. 

There are many things for me to testify about—to tell you 

today—just the time is limited and I do not speak English. I wish 

I could tell you more. 

I would like you to give me one more minute, if possible. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Honestly, take your time. We want to hear 

the story. Take whatever time it takes. 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] This was committed against the 

Yazidis, first—and it is still continuous, now. I delivered this message to Egypt and to Kuwait, because what is happening has been 

happening under the name of Islam. 

People there, they had sympathy. And, they said, ‘‘This does not 

represent us.’’ But, we have not seen Daesh labeled as an infidel 

group within Islam—not from any Muslim country. And, I asked 

the leader of the Al-Azhar Seminary, in Cairo, to say that ISIS is 

an infidel group within Islam—and he has not committed to it yet. 

Many families in Iraq and Syria, when the Yazidi women and 

girls were escaping to these houses, they could have helped them. 

But, no, they seized them and they gave them back to the militants. 

Daesh will not give up on their weapons unless we force them 

to give away their weapons. Before all, the Arab countries must 

stop the flow of their citizens into Daesh and prevent them from 
11 

joining Daesh. And, we have to prevent the supplies of weapons 

and money to them. And, we must prevent their oil from being 

sold. And then, we have to fight them, literally, after that. 

The Yazidis and all other religious minorities in Iraq, they are 

unable to protect themselves in Iraq and Syria. If a country as 

strong as your country cannot protect the citizens in Orlando, in 

Belgium, or in France, how can a small minority, like us, protect 

ourselves while we are in the heart of the land where the radicals 

are? 

There are many things for me to ask you, because, for 2 years, 

we have been waiting—but the list is just too long for me to ask 

you. 

I know what is going on now with the more than 3,200 Yazidi 

women, girls, and children who are still in captivity. When I was 

held, for every hour that passed, I was very happy and grateful for 

that hour if I was not sold and if I was not raped. One hour was 

counted for me—and every hour was counting for me. I was freed, 

but I do not enjoy the feeling of the freedom, because those who 

committed these crimes have not been held accountable. 

What happened to the Yazidi people was a genocide. Just the 

first day, thousands were killed. They forced the displacement of 80 

percent of the Yazidi people, who do not have the joy to have a tent 

to live in. And, they are holding more than 1,000 Yazidi children, 

in Syria, to be trained to have the exact same ideology that the 

crimes were committed under. Because of the children who were, 

at the age of nine—who did not enjoy their childhood and became 

slaves—and for the people who drowned in the Aegean Sea—and 

that is also a crime of ISIS, because those people escaped because 

of ISIS. Because thousands of our children also have been prevented from going to school—and this is all because of them. 

Today, I am saying that small religious minorities, such as the 

Yazidis, Christians, and other minorities, if they are not protected, 

they will be wiped out. We only are seeking peace. We want to live 

with dignity wherever we are. 

As a little girl, I had a dream. And, that dream was to open a 

beauty salon. And, I was prevented from accomplishing that dream, 

and that is the exact same story of thousands of children and people like me, who were prevented from continuing to pursue their 

dreams. 

Racism should not be practiced against Islam, but these crimes 

have been committed in the name of Islam—and Muslims must be 

the first ones to resist this. And, I do not like anyone to attack an 

entire religion—for example, the family that liberated me, in 

Mosul. But, at the same time, this is being committed under the 

name of Islam. 

There is so much time that is needed for me to tell my entire 

story, but now I will stop. And, I will give you the opportunity to 

ask any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Murad. Thank you for your 

courage in coming forward and testifying. 

Let me just ask, did any of your family survive? 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] Yes, two of my sisters, three of my 

brothers, and some of my nephews and nieces. I think people from 
12 

my family and my extended family, they were killed or they are 

missing. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Could you just tell us how you escaped? 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] I never believed I would be able to escape, because—not me or the other girls—because we were held in 

areas—it was just vastly occupied by ISIS. The first couple of days, 

I tried to escape, because I could not hold on anymore with the 

rape that was committed against me and the insult that was committed against me—I could not take it anymore. I decided to escape. 

I attempted to escape, but I was not successful. I was taken back, 

and I became a subject of rape by multiple people—collective rape. 

The second time I attempted to escape, I was successful. And, a 

family in Mosul held me, and they made me an Islamic identity 

document (ID). And, with that ID, I was able to escape from Mosul. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You mentioned there were 3,200 additional 

Yazidi girls and women being held captive. Are they dispersed 

throughout Syria and Iraq at this point in time? 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] Yes, they are everywhere, because they 

are not held in a specific place. What is happening is that they are 

being sold—and their places will be changed from one place to another. 

Chairman JOHNSON. By the way, we are holding the questioning 

rounds to 5 minutes, because we have so many Members attending 

this. 

Again, thank you, Ms. Murad. 

I do want to go to Dr. Elgawhary—a real scholar of Islam. Can 

you just explain, is there any way for us to understand—how did 

adherents of this barbarity—this violence—how did it get to that 

point? What happened? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. So, thank you, Nadia. And, Nadia was saying 

that Daesh—they do not represent Islam, but they use Islam—and 

she gave some examples. But, they are even using Islam wrong. So, 

for example, they told her that she had to go to the court and she 

had to swear on the Quran to become a Muslim. But, that is not 

how you become a Muslim. You become a Muslim by testifying, 

saying the testification of faith. So, even small, mundane things 

they do not understand. 

I just was so moved by what she said. And, it reminded me that 

the prophetic text—the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him— 

he said, ‘‘Fear the supplication of the oppressed because there is no 

veil between that supplication and the Lord.’’ And, he never mentioned that it is a Muslim or not a Muslim. And, he said, ‘‘I am 

the protector of the religious’’—‘‘I am the defender of the religious 

minority on the Day of Judgment against the Muslim that aggresses against the religious minority.’’ 

It is a big question that you asked, Senator Johnson, but, basically, the way I see it is that they are taking certain concepts—or 

certain phrases—and adding to it and appropriating to it new 

meaning that does not exist. For example, Nadia mentioned that 

one of the things they told her was that Yazidis do not count as 

the ‘‘People of the Book’’—that they are apostates. But, the concept 

of the ‘‘People of the Book,’’ in Islamic law, is not proscriptive. It 

is descriptive. It describes an organized religion that has a legal 
13 

code, that has a book—meaning sort of sacred text—and so on and 

so forth. And, as Muslims expanded eastward out of Arabia, they 

encountered Yazidis. These are communities that have existed with 

Muslims—and co-existed with Muslims—since the first generation 

of Islam, up until now. 

And, all of the other Dharmic faiths—Hinduism, Buddhism, 

Jainism, Shintoism, and Daoism—all of these religions—Muslim 

scholars understood these as ‘‘People of the Book,’’ because it is a 

description. It is not proscriptive. So, these differences are how 

they misunderstand certain things. 

The basic axis around which this thinking exists is this concept 

of takfirism, or declaring people to be apostates. I am an apostate— 

according to them—so, therefore, they can aggress against me. Why 

am I an apostate? Because I do not agree with what they agree on, 

I do not pledge allegiance to them, and so on and so forth. And, 

with this tactic, they go on and on and on. 

But, one last thing. Nadia mentioned, when she asked the sheikh 

of Al-Azhar, Dr. Ahmed el-Tayeb, in Cairo—why does the senior 

leadership of Sunni Islam not declare ISIS as non-Islamic—because 

I know this is a common question that I get—our understanding 

of organizations like ISIS is that it is even worse than apostasy, 

because there is no capital punishment for apostasy. The Prophet 

said that these people are khawarij—they are outliers. And, in all 

of his mercy, all of his love, and all of his beautiful teachings, he 

said, ‘‘Khawarij [foreign language].’’ He said that the khawarij are 

the ‘‘dogs of hellfire.’’ And, he said, ‘‘[foreign language],’’ or ‘‘Glad 

tidings to those that fight them and kill them and are killed in the 

process of killing them,’’ about the khawarij—about the outliers. 

So, it is even worse—it is even more of a derogatory statement— 

a derogatory label—than being an apostate. And, it is an obligation 

on all of us, in the family of Islam, to do what we can to combat 

it with whatever tools that we have at our disposal. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Just one very quick question, for either you 

or Mr. Hassan. Of the Muslim population—1.4 billion to 1.6 billion 

people—what percent of that population adheres to this barbaric 

ideology? Do you have any sense of that, whatsoever? 

Mr. HASSAN. For me? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Whoever has an estimate. 

Mr. HASSAN. ISIS does not need a lot of numbers. We have seen 

this, recently, when they start being—like, when there is a force 

that pushes them in a certain area, they can hold territory with 

like 200 people. I think they are a small minority. Even within the 

Syrian rebel groups, they are still a smaller group than others. 

But, I think, because of the sheer violence and brutality, they deter 

people—and they use the word [foreign language] in their literature, which means deterrence—with extreme violence and brutality. So, when they kill one person, they make sure that 100 or 

1,000 people see that person being killed. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Did you say we have 5 minutes? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes, we were trying to keep it at 5 minutes. 

There are so many people here. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Again, our thanks to each one of you for 

joining us today, and for sharing with us some parts of your life 
14 

that are not easily shared. And, we are deeply grateful to each of 

you, but especially to you, Nadia. Thank you. 

Here, in the United States, we are, as you probably know, people 

of many different religions. We are Protestant, we are Catholic, we 

are Jewish, we are Muslim, we are Hindu, we are Buddhist, and 

we are other religions as well. And, one of the reasons why our 

country was established was because of the concept and the nature 

of freedom of religion—people yearning, not just to be free, but to 

be free to worship God as they saw fit. 

There are some people who take the Bible—most people in America are probably Protestant and Catholic—most, but, certainly, not 

all—but some people take verses of Scripture out of the Bible and 

they twist them into things—in ways that are not really meant to 

be done. And, there are people in our own faith who bastardize our 

faith—they ‘‘cherry-pick’’ our faith. A great example is, ‘‘An eye for 

an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’’ People take that as an admonition to 

go out and wreak vengeance on people that have wronged them. 

But, that same verse of Scripture goes on to say, ‘‘ ‘Revenge is 

mine,’ sayeth the Lord.’’ ‘‘ ‘Revenge is mine,’ sayeth the Lord.’’ 

There is another verse in Scripture that says, ‘‘When I was a 

stranger in your land, did you take me in? ’’ And, we have some 

people in this country—some political leaders—I do not know that 

they have read Matthew 25—whatever their religion is—but there 

are some people in this country who have argued that the United 

States needs to stop accepting, not just Syrian refugees, but, in 

some cases, all Muslim refugees. And, in the case of the Syrian refugees that they would not allow us to accept, that included people 

who are not Muslim. They could be of different faiths. They could 

be a Christian or they could be a Jew—a variety of religions. 

And, I would just ask—starting with you, Mr. Elgawhary—I 

would start with you and just to ask, what are your opinions about 

a ban on, we will say, all Syrian refugees—or even all Muslim refugees? And, how would such a ban affect the ability, in this country, 

to counter ISIS propaganda and ideology? Would you go first? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. I am not really trained as a politician, so—— 

Senator CARPER. Neither are we. [Laughter.] 

We are untrained. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. At the risk of saying or making a political 

statement, I mean—I think, as an American, I understand—— 

Senator CARPER. My question is: What are your thoughts about 

how a ban on all Syrian refugees—or really all Muslim refugees— 

how does that affect our ability as a country to counter ISIS propaganda and ideology? That is my question. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. Well, I was going to say that I think, as I understand our Nation, I think it is un-American not to accept refugees. And, we have, I think, the legal, political, and, more importantly, moral authority to take in the people that we can. And, this 

is what this ‘‘E Pluribus Unum’’—this is what makes our Nation 

great. And, I think that, from a social cohesion standpoint, societies 

that are more plural are stronger. 

I think that, by bringing in refugees, we will be able to understand the problem more and see how we can help them more. But, 

I think some sort of form of isolationism—or some sort of rejection—will only increase the problem and make it fester more. 
15 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Other witnesses, please—same question. 

Mr. HASSAN. Sure. I can say two things. 

The first one is that, I try to keep in touch with people who left 

Syria—and they now live in Germany and other countries. And, I 

have seen how positive the message that European countries—and 

the case of here—only recently here—that they accepted them— 

and that was a positive sense. We only hear good things from refugees. They praise the Germans and how hospitable they are, and 

so on and so forth. 

And, the second thing that we have to recognize is—I think, especially for the United States—that the thousands of Syrian refugees, who left Syria and are in Turkey and Europe or are in the 

United States, have been instrumental in the fight against ISIS. 

They provide intelligence, information, mapping, and guidance. 

And, ISIS operates in these areas that—in Eastern Syria, Northeastern Syria, and Northwestern Iraq—and these people have been 

affected the most by violence—they were driven out. There is a reason why they were helpful in the fight against ISIS. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Anyone else? Mr. Nahas, just very briefly. 

Mr. NAHAS. OK. From my experience, as a refugee, myself—I 

went through the process and I would say that it is very highly unlikely for the process to let in any terrorists that try to come. It 

is a highly intense process that includes security checks, background checks, a waiting period of at least one year, and eyewitnesses. They ask you a lot of personal questions. It is highly unlikely that a terrorist, or a person who believes in these ideologies, 

would be able to pass through. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Nadia, could you briefly respond to my question? Very briefly, 

please. 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] I would like, first, to say that every 

country has the right to protect itself and to protect its borders and 

its laws. But, the people who are escaping from religious discrimination and genocide, they should not face closed doors before them. 

I would just like to say that, if the terrorists want to go someplace, they can go—regardless of the process. And, some of them 

have already immigrated. 

Senator CARPER. I think we have a moral imperative here. We 

face, in this country, a moral imperative to be true to those words 

that are written on the Statue of Liberty. We have a moral imperative where they happen to be—whatever faith, we have a moral imperative to Matthew 25: When you are a stranger in our land that 

we take you in. But, we also have a moral imperative to the people 

who live here and want to live in safety and be able to live to be 

old and have kids and grandchildren. 

And so, I think our challenge here is to make sure that, while 

we need to be true to our faith in allowing people who are in distress, on the run, and haunted by their memories—we need to be 

welcoming to them. We also, at the same time, have to be mindful 

of the need to protect our safety. Sometimes they are in conflict 

with one another. 
16 

The last thing I want to say—and, Dr. Elgawhary, you can comment on this later, but my understanding is that every religion— 

just about every religion, including Islam—has a Golden Rule: 

Treat other people the way we want to be treated. Is that true? 

And, is that not also true of Islam? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. Yes, it is. 

Senator CARPER. My view is, if all of us would sort of abide by 

that, since that is part of the fabric of all of our religions, we would 

all be a whole lot better off on this planet. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. So, we equally 

went over the time. 

Now, I think we need to keep it to 5 minutes in order to be respectful of all of the people here. So, Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to thank the Chairman. I want to thank 

all of you for being here. In particular, Mr. Nahas and Ms. Murad, 

we are so sorry for what you have gone through. And, your courage 

in coming forward here, today, is very important, so that we can 

hear what you have endured—and it is horrific. 

But, I wanted to follow up, Ms. Murad, on the issue that actually 

you raised—and I would like to have Dr. Elgawhary comment on 

it. And, that is, Doctor, you said that what Daesh is doing is beyond apostate. You have described it as the ‘‘dogs of hellfire.’’ And, 

I would agree with that description. 

But, what I want to understand is—to what Ms. Murad asked, 

as we look at how the reaction should be from—for example, I 

think she may have identified the Al-Azhar Seminary in Cairo, 

which I believe you studied at, and which is a very important seminary in Islam. Do you believe that leaders in this seminary, and 

other leaders in the Muslim world, have described and called out 

Daesh in the way that you have described it, today—as forcefully 

as they should? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. Thank you, Senator. So, just a correction. Those 

are not my words. I was quoting Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad said that the outliers are the dogs of hellfire. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right, but, I think, to ask—what I want to understand is—to really answer her question. Do you think that leaders, in a position to influence, for what Islam truly stands for, do 

you think that they have been forceful enough in calling out— 

whether you call them ‘‘dogs of hellfire’’ or ‘‘apostate’’—however, 

how Daesh is warping—as you have testified today—your religion? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. So, I think there is—yes and no. I think there 

are definitely those who are very outspoken. One scholar that 

comes to mind, who we have worked with, is Shaykh Muhammad 

Yaqubi, himself a Syrian refugee, for all intents and purposes— 

now living in Morocco. And, he has written a very extensive fatwa, 

a nonbinding religious opinion, in English, against ISIS. And, he 

actually makes the argument, which is a valid argument, that 

Daesh or ISIS are, in fact, outside of the folds of Islam. 

But, if you have ever worked with scholars and academics, they 

are a little bit slow on the uptake and not very good in front of the 

camera. And, I think that one of the—— 
17 

Senator AYOTTE. We need leaders to—— 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. Well, that is one of the problems, I think—one 

of the deficiencies—one of the weak points of Al-Azhar is its communication capacity. In a former life, I actually helped establish 

the Office of Communications for the Grand Mufti of Egypt, between 2003 and 2007, before I went to Princeton—and that was a 

coup. I mean, when I asked them, ‘‘How do you deal with journalism?’’, they said, ‘‘Oh, we call the police and we arrest them.’’ 

I said, ‘‘No, no, no. You have to work with the media, because, if 

you do not, what you are trying to say—what the Mufti is trying 

to say—is not going to get out there.’’ 

So, I think there is a lot of training that can happen to help that. 

But, I agree with you. More needs to be done, and more voices need 

to be heard. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Murad, I wanted to say that I believe that Daesh has engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. How 

important do you believe it is—you have put in your written testimony, today, and you have also told us—how important is it to formally recognize Daesh’s actions as genocide? And, I mean, with reference to the Yazidis and what you have told us today about how 

they are treating the Yazidis. 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] It is very important for us that what 

happened to us be acknowledged as a genocide. On the 16th of this 

month—just a few days ago—when the U.N. acknowledged the 

genocide—for the Yazidis, who have been hopeless for the past 2 

years, this was the first time they started having some hope. 

I would like these crimes to be legally recognized by you and I 

would like to be acknowledged. I would like you to look into the 

crimes—the things that I have talked about today and the things 

that Daesh has done—not secretly. They, publicly, have said that 

they will do it—and they did it. And, I would like you to look at 

these crimes and this evidence. 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to thank all of you for being here. I 

would just say that there is a Senate resolution, Resolution 340, 

which would call this for what it is—a genocide. And, I hope that 

we can come together and declare this a genocide. I would like us, 

as a Congress, to come together and declare this for what it is. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

of you for your testimonies. 

Dr. Elgawhary, I came in toward the last half of your comments, 

but, one of the things you said, right at the very end, was—and I 

just want you to confirm this—that ISIL has nothing to do with religion. Did I hear you right? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is what I believe I said. 

Senator TESTER. OK. So tell me the difference really quickly. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. I began by saying that normative Islam, in its 

Sunni and Shia expressions, is defined by an interpretive methodology. 
18 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. And, I walked through a little bit about the 

high level of what that is. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. And, that the texts that we have—what we believe to be divine texts—live in time. And, there is a discursive tradition in how we interpret these verses and these injunctions for 

the moment that we live in. But, ISIS, they have no—they are unlettered. They are completely unlettered in the religion and the 

fundamentals of the religion. Nor do they have an interpretive 

methodology. So, what they conclude is based on their own whims 

and desires, from what they are reading prima facie—without understanding the text, itself. 

Senator TESTER. OK, gotcha. So, I keep coming back to why 

these guys exist. There is absolutely a criminal element, because 

we saw that in Paris and we saw it in Brussels. The people belong 

to ISIL. There are also doctors, engineers, and other well-educated 

folks that are a part of it that, quite frankly, should not be a part 

of a twisted ideology, such as this. 

Could you tell me what about their ideology appeals to that 

broad of a base, from crooks to professionals and everything in between? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. I think, maybe, Hassan will know more, because he has actually interviewed some of them. But, I mean, intellectually or academically, I think that the first thing I would point 

out is that I do not know if they, necessarily, believe in what ISIS 

is saying or if they are coerced to believe in what ISIS is saying, 

or what they are holding to be true. I also think that—— 

Senator TESTER. Coerced by force? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. Yes, coerced by them—by ISIL—and—— 

Senator TESTER. So either you believe this or you are going to 

die? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. Yes, exactly. 

Senator TESTER. That kind of coercion. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. As we heard from Nadia, for example—and 

from other stories that have come out from ISIL-controlled areas. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. I also think that there is a spectrum of extremist thought within Islam. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. And, I think that it can start as something sort 

of innocuous, but there is something wrong with that way of thinking—and it can slide. And, I think that, when they find somebody 

that sort of looks like they are from central casting, they are able 

to pull them to that side. 

Senator TESTER. There are a lot of folks in that group, it appears 

to me, anyway. 

Do you want to comment, very briefly, on that—on what makes 

it—or just agree with the doctor, if he is correct? 

Mr. HASSAN. I mentioned in my testimony, before his, that the 

people who believe in the sort of ideology that ISIS believes in— 

as in, they really believe in it—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 
19 

Mr. HASSAN. There are only two categories: people who are 

young zealots or people who are indoctrinated by another category, 

which is of longstanding radicals that believe in takfirism, which 

is declaring fellow Muslims as infidels—as apostates—based on 

specific criteria that they have. They rely on books like—there are 

two books that come to mind. I do not want to get into too much 

detail there, but there is a book, for example, that is 1,000 pages 

of a man who, when he appeared on TV and he explained his methodology of fatwa, he said that fatwa should not be done in the same 

way that Muslim clerics have done it over the centuries. 

Senator TESTER. All right. 

Mr. HASSAN. That I, as a person, can declare you as a fellow 

Muslim or as an apostate, based on my impression of you—if you 

work with the West against Muslims, if you are an agent to a certain government, and so on and so forth. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. HASSAN. So their criteria are very post-modernist in a way. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Back to you, Dr. Tarek. So, are there statements or actions the United States has taken that might encourage 

people to be a part of ISIL? 

Mr. HASSAN. Me? 

Senator TESTER. No. Dr. Tarek. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. To be honest, that is a tough question for me 

to answer. I think that the rhetoric that comes out of ISIL sometimes makes us think that, if it were not for the U.S. invasion in 

Iraq or if it were not for the U.S. policy of doing this or the U.S. 

policy of doing that—but, the fact of the matter is, one can make 

that argument for any other country. One could make that argument for any other regional player in that region. And, politics is 

all based on interest—geopolitical interest—and things like that. 

So, I do not think that that is necessarily fair. I think, because 

America is so dominant in the world and so out there, it is just an 

easy target. And, it is this easy, ‘‘Oh, if America just stopped doing 

this, then we would stop doing that.’’ 

But, that is not going to happen. We know that. If we stop doing 

whatever they say, they are not going to change. 

Senator TESTER. All right. Well, my time is up. I want to thank 

you all for your testimonies. I will submit questions for the record, 

if appropriate, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It will be. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And, 

thank you all for such thoughtful comments and for such thoughtful words as well as for such courage and bravery—especially our 

last two witnesses. I think everyone here, who frequently spends 

a lot of time on their smart phones during the testimonies, sat and 

really listened. And, really, you moved us all. Thank you so much 

for your courage and for the fact that you are survivors—and, as 

survivors, you are willing to testify to the horror and to the imperative that we all, as good people, have to engage. 
20 

But, I want to, for a minute, turn to our first two witnesses and 

engage in a discussion about the message and the messengers. Doctor, I was fascinated by the work that you have done, basically, 

parsing kind of the perversion and responding to the perversion of 

Islam that is being done by these radical groups. And, obviously, 

having met with people who have been radicalized, you have a 

pretty good sense of what messages we could deliver that would actually make a difference—especially in this country, where, now, I 

think our greatest threat is the radicalization of young men and 

women—or American citizens. We have seen that now twice. 

And so, there are two parts of a message. It is the right message, 

and then, the right messenger—and I am just going to make a couple of points. I want both of you to respond to what you think the 

right message is and who the right messenger is. And, I want to 

know if you are familiar with what the Department of Homeland 

Security is doing, today, to try and provide a countermessage—and 

to offer any advice to us, as we review that, in our oversight role. 

And, that will be the last question I ask. And, I would ask that you 

both split up your time. 

Mr. HASSAN. Thank you. In terms of messaging, I think it is different, because it is complicated—because ISIS should be treated 

as two organizations in one. There is the local one, which operates 

on the ground in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere—like, in Libya and 

elsewhere—and they have their own messaging, which is usually 

based on sectarianism. And, there is the international one, which 

is very close to al-Qaeda. They, in fact, are trying to recollect and 

regather the dispersed networks of al-Qaeda that were, basically, 

dispersed after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the campaign 

against it. So, they are trying very hard to do that in Europe, in 

the United States, and elsewhere—but also in North Africa. So, the 

messaging should be different, because they are different organizations. 

On the ground and internationally, there is this danger that 

what happens—its appeal on the ground has become an international appeal. Why? Because it presented itself with some sort 

of an idea that everyone is fighting and the enemies of this organization are the West, Iran, or something else—that this organization 

stands for something. 

So, the most effective messaging against this is to not talk too 

much about only the victims of ISIS outside of the group that it 

claims to represent but, rather, what is really happening on the 

ground—which is that, on a daily basis, the group kills fellow 

Sunnis—people that it claims to represent—and we do not see that 

in media. 

For example, next to my village, I mentioned that they killed 700 

people. Only the ‘‘Washington Post’s’’ Liz Sly did the story about 

that, and, at the time, it was the single most horrific massacre. 

They killed a lot of people, but they killed 700 people in a matter 

of days. That needs to be the message—that, look, this is not an 

organization—not a sectarian organization—not an organization 

that represents a sect—or it is not just Islam versus the West. It 

is a crazy organization—an extremist organization that recasts 

itself in religious terms that the people of that faith rejected. And, 

that needs to be hammered again and again. 
21 

Senator HEITKAMP. Doctor? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. As far as messaging, I think there needs to be 

an unequivocal counternarrative from Muslim religious leaders—no 

wishy-washy stuff and no statements, saying, ‘‘Well, maybe there 

are five opinions on that.’’ Yes or no and black or white. There is 

right Islam and there is wrong Islam. Period. 

What I have been trying to do, in our organization—in 

WORDE—is, I conduct a monthly traditional class we call ‘‘halaqa.’’ 

And, I try to take one of the concepts that organizations like ISIL 

uphold and I try to deconstruct it in a very detailed way. And, my 

goal—obviously, the audience is, primarily, Muslim—but my goal is 

for young Muslim people to understand why it is wrong and why 

there is a perversion in their thinking—not that I am saying that 

I am the example, but I think that kind of effort is what we need 

more of. And, I think that the English language is actually very 

important in this regard, because a lot of the media that we have 

been seeing coming out of ISIL is in English and it appeals. So, I 

think that is very important. 

As far as recommendations, some of the things that come to 

mind—for example, in our home county of Montgomery County in 

Maryland, we have noticed a drastic increase in bullying toward 

Muslim students in the Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) 

system. And, I think that anti-bullying work is very important, so 

that our children feel safe in schools, so that they are not pushed 

to the side, and so they are not isolated. 

Also, in our organization, we work with helping refugees to resettle. And, I think those type of services are very important, so that 

people, like Subhi, Nadia, and others, who are coming as refugees, 

have something to plug into—so they are not left to drift in the 

wind. 

So, those are some of the things—and, sorry, one last thing. I 

think that media training for Muslim leaders abroad is also very 

important. And, I think there are a lot of good people—there are 

a lot of—I cannot remember who we were talking about, earlier. 

There are a lot of good leaders that are making the right argument, 

but they need to know how—you cannot write a 40-page legal opinion and expect that to be trending on Twitter. It is just not going 

to happen. And, when I told my teachers that, they were like, 

‘‘Well, what we are seeing is the dumbed down version of what our 

teachers said.’’ I said, ‘‘OK. We have to stop the humility thing and 

we have to be smart about how we inject this message into the 

media, because there is a certain way that media works.’’ So, media 

training, I think, is very important—social media, that kind of 

thing—for leaders abroad. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

Again, I want to make sure everybody gets to ask questions, so 

I will ask everybody to be mindful of the 5-minute limit. Senator 

Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you to 

our witnesses here, today. Ms. Murad and Mr. Nahas, thank you 

both for your very compelling testimonies and for your journeys 

here, to this country. It is very important, as we discuss refugees 
22 

and folks, like yourselves, who have been fleeing intense persecution and terror, that people see the human faces of the refugees 

that are in this country. Your presence here, today, is important 

and, hopefully, many people will see that and be as moved as I 

know everybody on this panel was moved by your testimony. So, 

thank you for your courage to be here, today. 

Dr. Elgawhary, I would like you to respond to what seems to be 

somewhat of a debate back and forth that we are hearing, in the 

political realm, now, as to whether or not we should call ISIS ‘‘radical Islam.’’ When you hear someone call it ‘‘radical Islam,’’ do you 

think that is an accurate description of what we are seeing with 

ISIS? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. I seem to be intent on getting all of the difficult 

questions. 

One of the things they taught us at seminary is that there is 

no—I am just trying to translate, in my head, on the fly. There is 

nothing wrong with labels, because, a lot of times, we get stuck on 

labels: ‘‘Why are you saying this?’’ or ‘‘Why are you calling it that?’’ 

And, I think that labels are only what their definition is. 

When somebody says—I use that term, ‘‘radical Islam,’’ and I 

know a lot of people in my community get upset. But, what I mean 

by it is, people that look Muslim, say they are Muslim, quote the 

Quran, and do horrible things. What are we going to call them? 

They are terrorists for sure. But, they are very different than a 

neo-Nazi group, for example. 

I, personally, do not have a problem with that. When people say 

that—whether it is Congress, the White House, or in the media— 

I understand what is meant. 

However, I fear that that can very easily slide into any form of 

religiosity from a Muslim is a form of radical Islam. And, that is, 

I think, where the fear is—that we limit it to what it is supposed 

to define. 

Senator PETERS. Mr. Hassan. 

Mr. HASSAN. That is a good question, because, personally, when 

I was in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) last year, I was an advocate of using these terms and on pressing clerics to speak up 

against this organization. I remember the late Saudi king, who 

died 2 years ago, admonished clerics—the high clerics—for the first 

time, in public. And, he said, ‘‘I feel you are lazy. You are not 

speaking up against ISIS,’’ when it came out. 

But, I think, when I moved to the United Kingdom (U.K.), last 

year, I felt that there is a question of the messenger—who says 

this term and why. And, it is important to keep this in mind. ISIS 

wants to divide—this is the thing that ISIS did in the Middle East 

and it is trying to do it elsewhere. It wants to polarize its enemies 

and it wants to polarize the society under its control. And, they 

want to divide their enemies. And, they have succeeded, in the 

Middle East, and they are, probably, succeeding here by getting 

people busy talking about what to call it and what not to call it. 

I think what is clear is that this organization, like Doctor 

Elgawhary said, has declared war on Islam—this is how it should 

be seen. It is a problem within the Islamic world, and it needs to 

be dealt with there. 
23 

And, here, what can be done is to help Muslims fight this organization. 

Senator PETERS. I appreciate that. The issue that we face here, 

in the United States, in dealing with this threat, deals with lonewolf folks, who may be inspired by what they see in the ideology. 

Is it safe to say that the folks that may be inspired by this are 

folks who, really, have very little understanding of Islam? Is there 

a correlation there? And, does that have something to do with this 

recent shooter that was claiming allegiance, I believe, to ISIS, but 

also, at some point, to Hezbollah—and how that may be inconsistent? If you could kind of address what may be going on in the 

minds of lone wolves as well as the things that we should be considering, in terms of how we respond to this phenomenon? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. So, I would say that, absolutely, people that 

self-radicalize—just like the radicals that we have been speaking 

about this morning—they have very little to no understanding of 

the religion, whatsoever. And, that is really the danger. And, part 

of that is that they have no training—they have no living teacher 

that they can sit with or that they can ask questions to, not allowing this discursive, interpretive tradition, which I described earlier, 

to take place. 

So, I think that that is definitely a fear—people that are surfing 

online, finding a lecture here, finding a statement there, cutting 

and pasting these together, formulating some kind of a conclusion, 

and acting on it—I definitely think it is a problem. And, I think 

that more instruction—more religious literacy for Muslims will 

help, in that regard. 

Senator PETERS. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I want to add 

my words of appreciation and thanks to our panel. These were very 

powerful testimonies. Thank you for being here. 

I know the hearing is about the ideology of ISIS—of Daesh. And 

yet, it was called in the wake of a horrible tragedy, in Orlando, 

that was, at once, a terrorist-inspired attack and also a hate 

crime—in this case, against members of the LGBT community. It 

was also ‘‘Latin Night’’ at the club, and it is unclear whether that 

contributed to the targeting of the club on that particular night. 

Mr. Nahas, when you were testifying, you shared with us that 

attacks against LGBT Syrians preceded the formation of ISIL— 

that it was called for, tolerated by, or perpetrated by the regime 

as well as militants that opposed the regime in Syria—that they, 

too, perpetrated violence against LGBT Syrians. 

In the United States, violence, bullying, intimidation, and discrimination against members of the LGBT community has a long 

history also. And, in the early days, you could, certainly, argue that 

it was sanctioned, at one point in our Nation’s history, by the government also—but things have changed. And, I want to just draw 

attention to something you highlighted, in your testimony, about 

the U.N. Security Council acting very recently to recognize that 

LGBT rights are human rights—a first in that international forum. 
24 

You highlighted it as something that is very important in moving 

forward. 

I guess, I want to ask, in terms of your proposals—your recommendations to this Committee and to others—how important is 

it for governments, for authorities, and for regimes to say that 

LGBT rights are human rights? And, how dangerous is the absence 

of that—the silence to that? 

Mr. NAHAS. Thank you, Senator, for this important question. 

From my own experience, growing up as a gay man in Syria, I 

knew, at an early age, that the government has laws against us 

and that my existence was not legal. So, I was not allowed to say 

it out loud. I was not allowed to be out in the open. It was punishable by up to 3 years in prison—this is the least—and, at worst, 

you could be persecuted by your own community members. So, it 

is very important for us to put the words out there—to say to governments—and to hold them accountable—to tell them that LGBT 

rights are human rights and they are not—just sexual rights. In 

my understanding, my community traditions say that LGBT rights 

are only sexual rights—they do not relate at all to human rights. 

And, to make this message clear to governments and to communities, it is very important to at least start to elevate discussions 

of the problems that I witnessed, in my country, where LGBT people were being bullied all of the time, persecuted, harassed in the 

street, and even verbally and physically abused. We could not go 

anywhere. We could not go to the police and we could not tell our 

families, because, if we did, they would have persecuted us more— 

because they would always say, ‘‘You have to man up and defend 

yourself. This is not an issue that you can talk about.’’ 

So, we need to use international platforms, like the U.N., to tell 

governments that these rights should be properly addressed. That 

delivers a very strong message. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. I wanted to follow up—oh, I am 

out of time. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You can ask it as a question for the record. 

Senator BALDWIN. So, a question for the record then. Senator Peters was asking questions about self-radicalization and lone wolves. 

And, I think, in the case of Orlando, it is not clear how deep of an 

understanding the perpetrator—the gunman—had with ISIL. He 

appeared to have online relationships with various terrorist organizations. But, I guess, I want to ask an even broader question about 

self-radicalization, because, we have seen, in recent instances of 

mass gun violence, in the United States, people that are selfradicalized, but that are inspired by different types of hatred of minority religions—as we saw in Wisconsin, Mr. Chairman, when a 

gunman entered the Sikh temple in Oak Creek and as we saw in 

Charleston, South Carolina, which was motivated by racial hatred. 

What can we learn about self-radicalization by studying those 

who have been self-radicalized by ISIL to deal with the selfradicalization of people who hold different types of hatred? 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, the witnesses can answer that in their 

written responses. 

Senator Lankford. 
25 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here. I appreciate your bravery in coming forward and your 

courage to be able to speak out. These are important days, and we 

need to be able to hear clear, articulate voices. And, I thank you 

for bringing that. 

Mr. Hassan, let me ask you, what is the end goal for ISIS? What 

do they see on the horizon? They are fighting for what? And, when 

will they know they have achieved it? 

Mr. HASSAN. Well, they say they want a caliphate that dominates 

the world. This is their stated mission. I think their realistic objectives are to control Syria and Iraq, to expand in the region, and to 

become this leader of jihad—and global jihad. That is why they 

spent so much effort targeting al-Qaeda. They are more critical of 

al-Qaeda than, probably, the other ones, because they see it as 

their competitor and their rival. 

So, their goal is regional dominance, but, obviously, they want to 

expand in the West and elsewhere. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, you talk about the regional dominance, 

yet they are trying to motivate people in Western countries— 

whether that be in Europe, the United States, Australia, or wherever it may be—to be able to fight and attack in those locations as 

well. So, why try to motivate people in Australia, in the United 

States, or in Europe to be able to fight for them, if the goal is the 

caliphate there? 

Mr. HASSAN. Well, I mean, listen to them and how they talk, 

reading their books—the books that they say that they read—the 

pamphlets and so on, they talk about the war, today. And, this is 

important, I think, for the anti-ISIS campaign, today. Because 

there is this tendency to think about tactical defeat as strategic defeat against ISIS, and that is not—though ISIS presents itself as— 

it is a long-term project. They talk about ‘‘nikaya,’’ which is a war 

of attrition, as a tactic. So, they want to exhaust the West and exhaust everyone else. They think, ‘‘10 years ago, we were fighting 

the Americans—the Americans were in Iraq and they had the appetite to fight us. Ten years later, President Obama had little appetite—or less appetite—to fight us. In 10 years’ time, that will be 

even less.’’ 

They have a core—and that is the most important part of ISIS— 

a core that mostly consists of security officials. These are the most 

dangerous people. Many of them are former members of Saddam 

Hussein’s Mukhabarat, or security apparatus. They shape the organization, in terms of how it operates, how it works, and how it ensures its survival. 

So, I think they have a goal. That core will not go away. You can 

defeat the organization—defeat the members who joined it 2 years 

and so on. But, they think of their long-term strategy as a strategy 

of ‘‘nikaya,’’ or a war of attrition. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So, if you go back 15 years ago or 10 

years ago, the United States was talking—and challenging—and 

the West was challenging leadership, in Islam, to call out al-Qaeda, 

which was happening, and to say that it was not consistent. Now, 

it is a challenge toward ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, or whoever may be 

in it—and to say that it does not line up with theology. We see this 
26 

springing up in multiple areas around the world. You used the 

term that I think is very familiar to us: ‘‘radical Islam’’—is twisting 

off. But, it is not just around ISIS. It is around, mostly, ISIS, 

today, but it could be Al-Nusra Front, it could be al-Qaeda, and it 

could be others. It is a more broad system. So, is it a ‘‘confront 

ISIS’’ or is it a ‘‘confront a larger set of teachings that is separate 

from traditional Islam? ’’ 

Mr. HASSAN. Well, that is the difference between defeating the 

organization, tactically—you can launch a very effective military 

campaign against it and you could defeat it. You can expel it from 

Mosul, Raqqa, and Fallujah. But, the organization’s appeal and the 

spectrum—the broader appeal of groups like it—like-minded 

groups, like al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups that believe in violence as a strategic goal, rather than violence just because they are 

pushed to violence. 

Senator LANKFORD. Does the worldwide movement of ISIS diminish if they do not have a functioning caliphate in Syria and in Iraq? 

Mr. HASSAN. It will. But, the fear—I think we have reached the 

point, today, where what has happened on the ground in Iraq and 

Syria does not so much affect the international appeal of ISIS. This 

is, I think, directly because of the fact that the campaign against 

ISIS has not been done properly. Using the wrong forces to fight 

ISIS, in towns where these organizations are viewed suspiciously, 

is a disastrous campaign that even the Department of State (DOS) 

officials complained about. They said, in that letter that they 

sent—a document saying that—for example, allowing the People’s 

Protection Units (YPG), which is an organization affiliated with the 

Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), in Turkey, which is designated, 

by the United States, as a terrorist organization—using that organization to fight ISIS—another terrorist organization—in Sunni 

Arab areas—that is just wrong. 

So, I think the campaign, today, is allowing ISIS to convert territorial losses into legitimacy in that region, specifically. And, that 

is why I have been warning time and again that the campaign is 

not being done properly. It is only making ISIS stronger. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER 

Senator BOOKER. I think Senator Lankford’s line of questioning 

is really right on and I would like to pick up right where he left 

off. 

First of all, you say, in your testimony, that you can defeat the 

group in Raqqa, Mosul, and Fallujah, but these defeats will remain 

tactical, unless the group is discredited by the same people it 

claims to represent. Could you go a little deeper into that? So, what 

then, specifically, are you advising for us to do, as we get these— 

we are shrinking their territory, clearly, but it seems like you are 

saying that we are giving them more strength, in some ways, by 

the way that we are doing it. Can you be a little more specific 

about what you are suggesting? 

Mr. HASSAN. That is a good question. I think we defeated ISIS. 

If I want to speak as the other side, ISIS was defeated in Iraq, in 

2006, after the surge. But, ISIS came back and took Mosul—was 
27 

defeated from 2006 to 2010. It was a very marginal organization 

in Iraq. Sunni Arabs, in the areas that ISIS operated in, defeated 

the organization, worked with the Americans, and policed their 

areas. That worked. 

But then, the policy that followed, in 2010, when the United 

States pulled out of Iraq—before Iraq was able to govern itself— 

and because there was support—perceived support—between the— 

cooperation between the United States and Iran to work with 

Maliki, who was a sectarian prime minister—and work with him, 

despite the fact that he was weakened and there was a rival—another Shia rival—who was more moderate and more tolerant—was 

supported. 

And then, the mistakes that followed that very success—the success that was between 2006 and 2010—led to circumstances that 

enabled ISIS, in 2012, to tell all Sunnis in these areas, ‘‘Look, the 

only way forward is for us to work together and reject this government from our area.’’ And, they were able to rally people—mobilize 

people against this government. And, that is why they were able 

to take Mosul in 2014—in the summer of 2014—took Mosul, forced 

the Iraqi army to drop its arms and flee, took massive weaponry— 

American weaponry—and marched back into Syria. And, they took 

Deir Ezzor, fortified Raqqa, took some of Hasakah, and so on. They 

became a strong organization, because of the political failures. And, 

my fear is that there is so much focus on the military component, 

rather than on the political, social, and religious dimensions to 

what is going on there. 

Senator BOOKER. And so, I see your point. And, I also appreciate 

that, in your testimony, you discussed how we, in the West, should 

be trying to discredit—or have Islamic voices discredit Daesh. And, 

maybe, that gets me to your testimony, which I thought was really 

wonderful—discussing all of the ways that they are perverting 

Islam in the way that they are waging their war and taking advantage of our political failures, in terms of how we are gaining territory. 

And so, this is not a clash of civilizations. This is about people 

perverting Islam and taking advantage of political realities. And so, 

I just want to get from you—and, you said this already, but I want 

to go one step deeper. For those of us who focus so much on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) efforts, here in the Senate, what 

are the specific tactics then, to start to expose ISIL for their perversions and to discredit them? What are some of the best ways to go 

about that? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. Thank you, Senator. I think I really believe in 

the counternarrative. And, that is very important, because, when 

I started to do this, less than a year ago, I realized that there is 

no very articulate, very clear-cut counternarrative. And, by 

counternarrative, I mean, how are we going to—how does Islam 

deal with issues of plurality? How do we deal with issues of democracy, citizenship, and constitutional nation states? All of these 

things have been argued, in the last 200 to 300 years, by Muslim 

jurists, but they are unknown to the vast majority of Muslims. 

So, a lot of the issues that Daesh—or ISIL, whatever—claim are 

the bones that they are picking with modernity, really, have been 

dealt with already. It is just the memo has not been passed around. 
28 

So, the counternarrative is effective, because it is steeped in very 

rigorous, authentic scholarship. It is based on the primary 

sources—the Quran and the Sunnah, which are very important for 

orthodox Muslims—— 

Senator BOOKER. And, Doctor, let me interrupt you there, because I am being mindful of my time. And, that is helpful, and I 

hope you will make yourself available if we have further questions. 

I just want to say, in my remaining 10 seconds, to Mr. Nahas and 

Ms. Murad, that your testimony was so courageous and so moving. 

The outrageous attacks going on against LGBT people in the Middle East and here in the United States, which, as you point out in 

your testimony, are the most common types of hate crimes we 

see—I am grateful for your honesty. And, your courage, Ms. Murad, 

is really just so profound. And, I am grateful that you would come 

here, today, and share your story, which is so important to hear. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

I actually want to kind of pick up on both Senator Lankford and 

Senator Booker’s lines of questioning, just in terms of what has 

been the reality of the situation, in terms of where ISIS is, right 

now, in terms of success—or lack of success—against it. There is 

a State Department report, called the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) Report—very difficult numbers 

there. They are very inaccurate. They are changing all of the time. 

But, when I looked at it, and I did a little calculation, globally, the 

number of people killed in terrorist attacks, prior to 9/11, was a little under 5,000. With updated numbers, that has grown five, six, 

or seven times. 

So, this is a real and, from my standpoint, a growing threat. The 

news reports show that, outside of Syria, ISIS-inspired attacks 

have cost 1,191 lives—in just the last 2 years?—last year. The 

analogy I have been using, in terms of—and I realize we have 

made some progress. We have taken back some territory. But, they 

still control territory. And, the analogy I am, somewhat, using is 

that of a beehive. You might have a beehive in your back yard. You 

can poke it with a stick and do damage to the hive, but you are 

also stirring up the hive. 

Is that what we are witnessing? And, what is the danger there? 

And, is it not true that we do have to defeat ISIS—we do have to 

deny them that territory—we have to deny them that caliphate? 

But then, we have a lot of mopping up to do. These Islamic terror 

groups, if anything, they are spreading, they are growing, they are 

evolving, and they are metastasizing. It is like a cancer, and we are 

not winning this battle. Mr. Hassan. 

Mr. HASSAN. Well, I come from the perspective that ISIS and alQaeda are growing and there will be other groups that join them. 

So, they are on a trajectory of expanding for the next decade—or 

even two. And, it is important, I think—at this moment, ISIS has 

been rolled back. It has been defeated, territorially, in Iraq and 

Syria—like the statistic mentioned before—50 percent in Iraq— 

they lost 50 percent of their territory. In Syria, they lost 20 percent 

of their territory. And, in Libya, they are also on the back foot. 

And, in Libya, they are struggling to even establish any presence 
29 

there. Al-Qaeda is doing very well in Yemen. The same thing in Afghanistan. They are not doing very well there. 

So, their capacity, currently, is limited. However, I think their 

ability to inflict damage is strong. They benefit from the open 

space, obviously, on the Internet—self-radicalization—you can become self-radicalized by watching a video by Anwar al-Awlaki, the 

American citizen who was killed in a drone attack in 2011, I think. 

It is very easy to become one of them. The radicalization—the sort 

of radicalization that leads someone to ISIS is swift and animating, 

meaning they can push a person, in a very short time, to do some 

damage. It is very hard to predict it, but it is there. It is a danger 

that will remain for—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, a short answer—I mean, the gains we 

are rolling up in Syria and Iraq, does that give you much comfort? 

Because you are saying this is a long-term project. You think they 

are going to be growing in strength over the next decade or two? 

Mr. HASSAN. Yes. And, briefly, that is good. The problem is the 

other tracks: the political track, the social track, and the religious 

track—the political process in Iraq and Syria—the conflict—is lagging behind. If they are catching up to the military advances, then 

ISIS will go away for a while. But, for now, the problem is the 

focus on military, while neglecting the other things. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Dr. Elgawhary, I want to shift a little bit 

to the Muslim Brotherhood. I think it is, oftentimes, reported as, 

maybe, a more moderate group. Do you have any thoughts about 

the Muslim Brotherhood? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. I have a lot of thoughts about the Muslim 

Brotherhood and similar groups. I think that goes back to what I 

was trying to say earlier—the concept of a spectrum. And, I think 

these Islamist groups—while some of them are on the very left of 

the spectrum and while some of them are not, necessarily, open to 

violence, there are certain procedural changes, which, if those took 

place—if certain boxes were ticked on the form—violence then 

would be authorized. I mean, look at what has happened in Egypt, 

my home country and the country of my family. 

So, I think that I am always shocked—utterly shocked—at how 

engaging our government is with organizations, like the Muslim 

Brotherhood, quite frankly. And, when I spoke to people in the embassy, in Cairo—when I was living there for a while—and I said, 

‘‘Why do you not engage with Muslim leaders?’’ And, they said, ‘‘We 

do. We engage with so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so.’’ And, they 

gave me a dropdown list of all of these Islamist Muslim Brotherhood activists. So, I think there is a big mismatch and I think, by 

engaging with them so openly and so freely, we almost legitimize 

that approach. 

So, I think that it is dangerous. I think it is definitely on the 

spectrum. It is not necessitated that it will go from one end of the 

spectrum to another, but it is definitely on the spectrum that I am 

concerned about. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Again, we thank each of you for 

being with us today, for spending this time with us, and for sharing your thoughts with us—and your advice as well. 
30 

I want to start with a question. Mr. Hassan, I will start with 

you, but then invite other witnesses to respond, too. I think, in 

your testimony, you wrote that the United States must highlight 

that the war with ISIS is not a sectarian conflict. That is pretty 

much what you said, I think. And, you point out that there are 

Muslims of both Shia and Sunni Islam joining Christians, joining 

Jews, and joining people of all religions and ethnic backgrounds in 

fighting ISIS. 

With that said, some people here, in the United States, are trying to paint this battle against ISIS as a broad clash between the 

West and Islam. I think our President has made it clear that he 

believes this kind of rhetoric is dangerous, it is patently false, and 

it plays directly into the hands of ISIS. And, I would just ask: Do 

you agree with this? 

Mr. HASSAN. I agree that this is not a sectarian war and this is 

not a war—again—I mean, it is not an ‘‘Islam-versus-West’’ war. In 

fact, if anything, ISIS is all about Muslims versus Muslims. This 

is what the ideology is built on. We can talk about ideas and ideology, but, practically speaking, the way that the ideology of ISIS 

has matured and become kind of framed was a reaction to the 

events that happened after the Iraq War—not the Iraq War, itself, 

but how, for example, Sunnis reacted to the presence of Americans 

on the ground. And, they started declaring these people as apostates—and asking, ‘‘What is the punishment for these people?’’ So, 

they started to appropriate events in Islamic history to the context 

that is going on here. 

So, it was not at all about the West. It is about what is going 

on, on the ground, in the Muslim world. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Dr. Elgawhary, again, the question is: Do you agree that portraying this war against ISIS as a war against Islam plays directly 

into the hands of ISIS—or not? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. I mean, I sort of agree with what Hassan was 

saying. I think, if anything, the victim of ISIL is Islam, itself. And, 

they have definitely declared war on our scholars, our normative 

tradition, and our Sunni and our Shia sects. And, that is the biggest tragedy. And, I do not think that—and I think that our best 

allies in this are normative Muslims, who are people like me. I 

mean, my life is threatened just by being here, speaking out 

against this. And, I do not say that lightly. And, I think that I 

want to stop that even more, probably, than you do. I mean, I really want this to end and I want to know what I can do to push that 

forward. And, I think, in that desire, exists the greatest ally we 

have to counter the rhetoric and the ideas that are coming out of 

ISIL. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Nahas, the same question, please. 

Mr. NAHAS. I am sorry. I do not have the capacity to answer this 

question. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Nadia, do you want to respond to that question, please? Do you 

agree that painting this war against ISIS as a war against Islam 

plays directly into the hands of ISIS and, inadvertently, that we 

are helping ISIS by portraying this as a war against Islam? 
31 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] The first thing I did was I went to 

Egypt and tried to deliver that message, because, the things that 

happened to me, I wanted to go to these countries and to tell them 

what happened to me. 

I want to prevent the youth from joining the Islamic State. I 

went and I told them what crimes were committed, what actions 

the took, and what ideology they had. I want to stop the flow of 

the youth to them. 

Speaking against this is not help for Daesh. You have to speak 

against it. Also, minimizing the role of Daesh, or their power, is not 

right, because, only as its border, it is more than 3,000 miles—and 

they protect it all. Tens of thousands are fighting for them. 

Some of our villages are only 150 people living in a small village. 

We have not been able to recapture these villages for a year and 

a half. So, how about the big cities? It is not a small power. 

Speaking against ISIS does not mean speaking against Islam 

and also does not mean speaking in favor of Sunnis or Shias—one 

against another. When we all speak together against this, then we 

are united. Then, we can defeat it. 

Senator CARPER. All right. My time has expired. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I are both supporting legislation that 

would strengthen the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to reach out to faith communities—to reach out to civic groups, 

parents, and community leaders in order to prevent ISIS from recruiting Americans, which we believe is the greatest threat that we 

face. If I could just have 30 seconds and ask Dr. Elgawhary, what 

advice would you give the Department of Homeland Security, as 

they put together and implement this outreach to a broad community—to focus on reducing the likelihood that people will be 

radicalized here? Just give us, maybe, one strong piece of advice for 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. Work with us. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I will give all of the witnesses a chance to just have a closing 

comment after we go to Senator Booker. But, I do want to ask 

Nadia a quick question. Who helped you to escape? 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] A Muslim family. 

Chairman JOHNSON. That answers your question. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Doctor, Senator Carper asked a pointed question, to which you said, ‘‘Help us,’’ basically, to help you. But, we 

are looking at specific efforts that have been going on to activate 

lone wolves in the United States as well as cells in Belgium and 

France. And, this is part of the war that, obviously, hits Western 

countries right where they are—being preached at—where citizens 

of those countries and American citizens are finding the ISIS ideology and the perversion of Islam so compelling that they are willing to take up arms against their fellow citizens in Europe or in 

the United States of America. And, clearly, we are doing a lot already, trying to empower local organizations in our communities, 

working with mosques, and we have had panels here where folks 

have given testimonies about that. We now have allocated more resources toward that. I have been one of the people saying CVE ef-
32 

forts should not be law enforcement’s focus. They should be focused 

on empowering communities and empowering those networks. If 

CVE becomes just more police, more surveillance, and more of that, 

it is not going to really help us deal with the core of the problem. 

And, what I found so compelling about you is, you pointed out so 

clearly—in a way that I learned a lot from your testimony—so 

clearly that this is a perversion of Islam. This is not Islam we are 

fighting against. This is about people that are using it to fuel hatred, violence, and, as Hassan Hassan said, tactically, for political 

objectives—to control territory and to expand the reach of their totalitarian ends. 

But, my concern is, I still think we need to be doing more— 

frankly, a lot more—to counter that narrative. And, I liked what 

you said in one of your responses, that another paper—another 

150-page paper is not that effective against the means that you 

often see online that often seduce and pull in sort of vulnerable 

souls to this kind of terrorist activity. 

So, I understand your sort of short answer to a short question, 

but I am trying to figure out what the specific strategies are. And, 

we are seeing some of them that are working, where you expose the 

fact that ISIL is killing far more Muslims—killing far more 

Sunnis—than they are killing people in the West, which really begins to expose this, so that those young people who might be susceptible to them see them for who they are—naked before their 

eyes. And, those are the kind of strategies that we need to start 

really investing in more. 

And so, in the 2 minutes I left you, after a 3-minute preamble, 

could you go, really, to the core of those things that, if you were 

making the investments in the budgets that we have to oversee— 

where would you be placing those dollars, more specifically? 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. We have a very successful model, in Montgomery County, called ‘‘The Brave Model.’’ It is a public-private 

partnership. We work with law enforcement. We work with the 

County Executive. It is a really good program. It is getting national 

recognition. We are trying to export this model and train other people, in other counties in the country that need this type of message. 

What I do, in this model, is I do a lot of the counternarrative. 

I would love to be in a position where I could train other young 

Muslim leaders, in this country and our counterparts in Western 

Europe, on what these points—I did the research. I am happy for 

them to take it. I am happy for them to say that they did it. Maybe 

my colleagues will be upset about that, but I am happy for people 

just to get the message out there. 

I also mentor people—people that might be on the spectrum, who 

are referred to us by law enforcement or the school board—that 

might be on the spectrum, but there is no capacity for local government to deal with them. I sit down with them. I talk with them. 

I try to decipher: Is there a problem? Are they on the spectrum? 

Is it a mental health issue? Then we try to refer them out to county-wide programs that will help them. 

So, this public-private partnership is working. It is working in 

our county. And, I think, if I had some say on the purse strings, 

I would like to see us be in a position to train other counties, 

first—wherever in the country it is needed the most—and I would 
33 

like us to go overseas to Western European cities, like Brussels or 

London, and work with our counterparts over there to train them 

in this model. 

Senator BOOKER. And, that is a proactive strategy that often 

saves a lot of money, in terms of the reaction that we have to do 

with law enforcement or, God forbid, something happening. Today, 

your testimonies have been testimonies of courage, which, as you 

said, people should understand that you are risking your life by 

coming here, by speaking truth, and by laying bare the evil that 

we are up against. And, for that, I am deeply grateful. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Booker. And, you are 

right. I mean, just think of the evil—that people are threatening 

somebody speaking the truth—with their lives. 

Again, I would like to offer all of the witnesses about a minute 

to just make a final comment. And, we will start with you, Mr. 

Hassan. 

Mr. HASSAN. I think we sort of covered most of the ground, but 

I want to just emphasize that we all need to show ISIS—show 

what it is like on the ground—like what it does to the people that 

it claims to represent. We need to emphasize that these are its victims as much as the others are. And, I think that needs to be 

present in the media. It is not one person’s war. It is everyone’s 

war. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Hassan. 

By the way, Doctor, you had the harder questions because you 

have ‘‘Doctor’’ in front of your name. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ELGAWHARY. It is actually at the end of the name. 

Senator Johnson and Senator Carper, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee and to submit testimony about 

something that is much more than work. This is something very 

personal. I think of my children when I come here and how the 

rhetoric—even though they are young—the political rhetoric, unfortunately, is something that scares them. And, I hope that what we 

are doing here will help build a more resilient homeland, so that 

the America that they grow up in will be better than the America 

that I grew up in. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Nahas. 

Mr. NAHAS. Thank you, Senators, for the opportunity and for allowing me to speak in front of you. And, every time that I have a 

chance to speak and to talk about my experience, I always think 

about my counterparts that are still in danger—that are still under 

threat, especially, because they are different and because they do 

not conform with other people’s expectations. And, I hope that the 

United States will take a stand and will be more active in holding 

governments and other actors on the ground accountable for their 

actions—and do something about this. 

Thank you so much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Ms. Murad. 

Ms. MURAD [Interpreted.] Thank you. And, thank you also to all 

of the attendees and witnesses who came here. 

I wish that we could all work together and stand up together to 

stop this terrorism. I would like also for you to recognize our genocide and to bring every single one from ISIS—whether a leader, 
34 

someone in the middle, or soldiers—to bring everyone who committed these crimes to justice. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We would love to see that. 

Again, thank you very much—— 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator. 

Senator CARPER. I do not have any more questions, but I, certainly, would like to thank all of you. And, one of the key 

takeaways for me here is, we talk a lot here about the Golden Rule: 

Treating other people the way we want to be treated. We both have 

children. Our children are out of school and out into the world. 

But, in the schools that they went to, there was bullying. And, in 

some cases, I remember, as a parent, I was aware of some bullying 

that was going on and I was, actually, going to the school and 

speaking out against it, trying to make sure that that did not persist. And, I think we were successful. 

But, I applaud folks of the Islamic faith—I really applaud those 

who are speaking up, in some cases, at risk—at real risk to your 

own personal safety. I want to make sure you do not pay any price 

for that, but that is a matter of real concern. 

But, for the kids who are being bullied, because they happen to 

have a name like Elgawhary, Hassan, Nahas, or Murad, I especially am concerned about them—that they, somehow, are paying 

a price as well. And, I think, if I were giving them advice, it would 

be to be vocal and brave in speaking out against the kinds of 

abuses that we see perpetrated by ISIS. And, I think, maybe, the 

best protection that they have is to denounce those kind of activities. And, it may be a hard thing to ask kids to do, but I think, 

in the end, they will be safer. And, I think, ultimately, they will 

feel better about their own situation. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Again, I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimonies 

and for your courage. You, certainly, have, I think, accomplished 

our goal of laying out a reality and helping us understand this better. We have a long way to go in fully understanding this—the 

American people do—but you have, certainly, helped that. So, 

again, thank you for your testimonies and your courage. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until July 6 at 

5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(35) 

A P P E N D I X 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

Æ