Arizona committee urges Congress to review Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR after heated hearing

The Arizona House committee on Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections voted 4–3 on Jan. 20 to return two house concurrent memorials urging Congress to review whether the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) meet the criteria for designation as foreign terrorist organizations.

Chairman Gillette, sponsoring one of the measures, told the committee it was not an attack on religion but “about a dual tracked support for a system outside of our constitution,” citing excerpts from the Holy Land Foundation prosecution and arguing some organizations have supported extremist causes. The committee played a short video and heard testimony from national-security analysts who described historical links they say tie certain groups to violent networks.

Proponents cited excerpts from the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial and said those materials support federal review. Christopher Holton, senior analyst at the Center for Security Policy, told members the Muslim Brotherhood had a transnational mission and described the Holy Land Foundation evidence as demonstrating that mission in North America. “The Muslim Brotherhood is the original Islamic terrorist organization,” Holton said during his testimony.

Speakers opposed to both memorials argued the measures were legally and factually unsound and would harm civil-rights work and community services. Martin Quezada, CAIR Arizona’s attorney and civil-rights director, said CAIR has not been designated by the Department of State, the Department of Justice, or the FBI and called efforts to brand a civic organization as terrorist “guilt by association.” “As part of CAIR, we’re disappointed that we’ve been grouped in like this,” Quezada testified, adding that CAIR’s chapters provide pro bono legal services and community outreach.

Other witnesses reinforced both sides. Dr. Naveed Khan, who said his nonprofit runs clinics that serve thousands in Arizona, warned a designation would stigmatize Muslim-serving organizations and undermine health and legal services. Linda Brickman, who identified herself as having worked with Act for America, argued there was sufficient documentary material to support urging federal action.

Committee members split along lines of policy and evidentiary concerns during floor debate. Representative Alexander Collin said he votes on the measure’s text and voted yes; Representative Brian Garcia and Representative Lydia Hernandez explained their no votes, saying the measures risked stoking hate and would not improve public safety. Chairman Gillette described his aye vote as based on federal documents and court findings he said implicated the national organizations.

The committee’s due-pass recommendations will send both memorials to the House floor and communicate to Congress and federal agencies the legislature’s request for review. The measures themselves would not change state law; they urge Congress and the president to take specified actions at the federal level.

What happens next: Both memorials will move to the House calendar for further action. If the House approves, the memorials would be transmitted to Congress as formal expressions of the Arizona legislature’s opinion.