Barbie Dolls in burqas: These futuristic novels depict Islamic theocracies in the West


The 9/11 Commission report said that the biggest failure of counterterrorism policy was the “failure of imagination”. Well here is a little something to stimulate your imagination and perhaps inspire you to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

The Rebel, by DAVID MENZIES, Nov. 29, 2015:

I’m a big fan of speculative fiction, a highly imaginative genre that brings possible futures to life.

It might be something like the flying car in The Jetsons that still hasn’t become reality yet, or it can be something that isn’t quite so far-fetched, as is the case with novels that visualize the rise of an Islamist theocracy in the West.

One novel on that theme is Prayers for the Assassin, set in 2040. America is split into a new Bible Belt and an Islamic theocracy, where Barbie Dolls wear burqas. Lots of people converted to Islam out of fear or even trendiness, looking at Islam as no different than Scientology.

And then there’s Michael Houellebecq’s new novel Submission, about a near-future France with a radical Muslim president.

Again, craven “enlightened” leftists are quick to convert to Islam in this novel, all the better to get ahead in their careers (and get four pretty wives in the bargain.)

Considering the French reaction to the Paris terror attacks, is this really so far-fetched?

We’ve already seen elements of sharia creeping into our real world so I’d suggest that these novels should be looked at as warnings of what can happen if we don’t heed the wise words of Edmund Burke who famously said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Also see:

A Twinge That Could Stop a Catastrophe

twinge of survival signal about islam (1)Citizen Warrior, Nov. 28, 2015:

In Gavin de Becker’s book, The Gift of Fear, he points out that many times a victim of rape intuitively knows something isn’t right — and sometimes knows it in time to do something about it — but the rapist often plays on her kindness, so she ignores her intuition, writes off her own twinge of fear as ridiculous because after all, he’s such a nice man.

One of the examples de Becker uses is a woman who was carrying groceries up the stairs to her apartment when a friendly man offered to help her. She had an immediate twinge of fear (what de Becker calls a “survival signal”) and she said, “No thank you.” But he insisted and when she hesitated because she didn’t want to hurt his feelings, he added a little “typecasting” to set the hook. Typecasting is one method manipulators use to influence people. It’s a slight insult designed to cause the victim to prove that the insult doesn’t apply to her, and in so doing, she makes herself more vulnerable. Read more about it here.

So she overrode her survival signal and accepted his help. She was raped in her apartment, and if it weren’t for the fact that she listened to her second twinge of fear, she would have been murdered that night.

There are orthodox Muslims who are using the same manipulative techniques with non-Muslim countries: Appealing to their kindness and typecasting them by implying that if they prevent Muslim immigration, they’re racist Islamophobes. Their goal is to get more Muslims into our non-Muslim countries. And as they gain a greater percentage of the population within our countries, they push for more and more concessions— getting the host culture to yield to Islamic standards one small increment at a time. This is what Raymond Ibrahim calls Islam’s rule of numbers.

As their numbers grow, their political power grows. Then politicians can no longer ignore this voting block and the push for concessions grows more insistent and demanding. The country is gradually converted to Islamic law.

Almost every non-Muslim country is on this track, yet still in a position to save itself, and some people within each country — more all the time — are listening to our survival signals.

Our twinges of intuition are correct: Islam swallows up cultures. In the end, nothing is left but Islam. That’s just what it does. Our twinge is a gift. A warning. Here’s the message, clarified into English: “Don’t let them in.”

BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

3673405460 (2)

Center for Security Policy, Nov. 23, 2015:

In this new monograph, adapted from Annex 1 of his superb recent book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Stephen Coughlin explains what’s really behind the so-called ‘interfaith dialogue movement’ and how the Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted the well-meaning but misguided intentions of the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Coughlin’s expertise in the nexus between Islamic Law (shariah) and Islamic terrorism informs his exposure of the manipulative Brotherhood strategy to use the interfaith dialogue arena as an opportunity to edge Catholics toward a dislocation of faith so as to pave the way for the insinuation of shariah into American faith communities and society in general.

At a time when Vatican policy seems to many to have become unmoored from the traditional doctrinal teachings of the Church in ways advanced by the permissive environment of the interfaith dialogue movement, including tolerance of anti-Constitutional, anti-Western, shariah-based Islamic principles as well as those who promote them, this publication hits home hard. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it is intellectually impossible to adhere faithfully to Church doctrine and yet grant acceptance to principles that are fundamentally opposed to such precepts at the same time. Only a dislocation of Catholic faith could allow such moral equivalence. Ultimately, as he argues, the objective of Islamic supremacists is the prioritization of interfaith relationships over advocacy on behalf of fellow Christians being slaughtered elsewhere by the co-religionists of their Muslim interfaith partners—in other words, the neutralization of the Catholic faith community as a serious obstacle to the encroachment of shariah.

In praise of this new Center publication, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said,

While the interfaith dialogue movement presents itself as a laudable effort to ‘bridge’ the distance between faiths, those more familiar with the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood know that the actual agenda of too many such efforts is, in fact, modeled after the well-known dictum of Sayyid Qutb, who candidly reminded Muslims that such a ‘bridge’ is ‘only so that the people of Jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] may come over to Islam.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere: The Catholic Church’s Case Study in Interfaith Delusion is available for purchase in kindle andpaperback format on

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in Kindle format.

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in paperback format.

Click here to download a PDF of this monograph in its entirety.



Bradley Hooper, a fellow counterjihad activist, posted this very insightful comment on his facebook page:

Does your pastor or priest value their relationship with the local imam more than their relationship with you? If you spoke up for persecuted Christians in the Islamic world and said Islamic law was the main cause of persecution, do you think he or she would encourage you to continue or try to silence you?

When the local pastor meets with the imam they smile, joke, drink coffee and eat cake. (Who doesn’t like drinking coffee, eating cake and talking about pleasant things?) It’s wonderful. The imam is a nice guy. He tells your pastor that Jews, Christians and Muslims used to live in peace and that he is saddened that his religion has been hijacked. The worse things get in the world, the more your pastor holds on to the hope that Jews, Christians and Muslims will one day enjoy the same kind of relationship he enjoys with the local imam. They say it’s important in interfaith dialogue to emphasis similarities, not to talk about differences, and not to talk about the awful things in the Islamic world. But what your pastor or priest probably doesn’t know is that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the interfaith movement and they want pastors, priests and rabbis to value their relationship with their local imam so much, that he or she is willing to speak out against any Christian or Jew who would interfere with the interfaith dialogue by talking about uncomfortable truths. Brotherhood members do not want you or anyone else speaking up for persecuted minorities in the Islamic world and they want your pastor, priest or rabbi to do their dirty work for them by shutting you up. (Some people literally can get away with murder if they’re nice.) A real shepherd does not feed the sheep to the wolves. Please get informed and speak up.

If you’d like to go deeper read Stephen Coughlin’s book “Catastrophic Failure” and Mark Durie’s book “The Third Choice.”

Bradley Hooper is a huge fan of Mark Durie and recommends viewing the following:

 Understanding Islam (video)
 Other faiths under Islam (video)
Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood: what is the difference? (article)

Islam, rape, and the fate of Western women

b4f2da677556f77db2654a7dd0535488American Thinker, By Carol Brown, Nov. 29, 2015:

Muslim men rape non-Muslim women (and girls) in disproportionately high numbers in countries with growing Muslim minority populations. Rape of infidel women is part of Islamic law and Islamic tradition. As such, it’s been going on for centuries.

This article is about the current threat Muslim rapists pose to non-Muslim women. In order to keep this article to a reasonable length, the focus is on the rape epidemic in Europe, but suffice it to say rape jihad is a gruesome reality the world over.

Perhaps there is no European country where rape has reached epidemic proportions as it has in Sweden, a country now known as the “rape capital” of Europe. Sweden ranks Number 2 on the global list of rape countries. From 1975 to present, rape in Sweden has increased 1472%. Based on this model, it is now projected that one in four Swedish women (and sometimes little girls) will be raped. Rape of men and boys is also on the rise.

Making this nightmarish situation worse, the authorities hide what’s going on, make outlandish excuses for it, and/or side with the rapists. Dhimmitude has taken hold. Few, if any, will state the truth: that the majority of rapes in Sweden are committed by Muslim males.

Of note, a large number of Muslim rapists are under the age of 18 and, if brought to “justice,” receive exceedingly light sentences (even lighter than the absurd non-punishment adults receive) because they are considered juveniles. And so they are released back onto the streets in a flash. To commit more rape. Related to this issue is the fact that many Muslim men in Sweden are classified as “unaccompanied children” when they arrive.

The sickness that has taken over Swedish culture is so shocking that in one case where a Somali Muslim was found guilty of raping a dying woman to death (which is horrific enough), the judicial system refused to send him back to Somalia because they determined he would be just as much a risk to women in Somalia as he would be to women in Sweden. And so Swedish women were disregarded out of deference to Somali women.

(To learn more about the rape epidemic in Sweden see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

But Sweden is not the only European country where rape has become commonplace. Importing Muslims en masse has taken a toll across the continent. With the recent avalanche of young Muslim males sweeping across Europe, violence is rising even further. Including rape.

In the United Kingdom rape is occurring on such a massive scale that women no longer feel safe taking a taxi cab. Meanwhile, Muslim child sex trafficking gangs have become so pervasive it is estimated there may be as many as one million victims. One million! It has been referred to as rape on an “industrial scale.” And how has this massive attack against non-Muslim girls in the United Kingdom been addressed by the authorities? They’ve covered up the truth, often blaming the victims. Political leaders, the police, the courts, the media. You name it. They’re overflowing with cowards, leaving children to suffer the unthinkable horrors of kidnapping, torture, and rape.

(To learn more about rape, including child sex trafficking operations in the UK, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

In Holland, sex trafficking gangs run by Muslim men are also on the rise. In Germany, rape committed by “asylum seekers” is skyrocketing as rape by Muslim men is explained away as “cultural misunderstandings.” So to avoid such “misunderstandings” girls are told to cover up lest they draw attention to themselves and be raped.

In Austria, women are feeling the impact of this current avalanche of Muslim invaders, as when a 72-year-old woman was recently raped by a 17-year-old “asylum seeker.” In France, gang rape is on the rise. As with the rest of Europe, if the rapists are brought to trial they barely serve time for their heinous crime. In Spain, the situation is so dire that women don’t leave their house after dark for fear of being raped by Muslim men.

In Denmark, more than half of convicted rapists are Muslims. In Norway, there has been a dramatic spike in rapes. In Oslo, 10% of females over the age of 15 have been raped by Muslim men with Muslim men guilty of 100% of the rapes against Norwegian women. Rape in Oslo is now so common that hotels hand out key chain alarms when people check in and increasingly Norwegian women only go out in groups. As is the case throughout the West, anyone who speaks the truth about this is labeled a “racist.”

(To learn more about rape jihad across Europe, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Meanwhile, in the face of this savagery, our political leaders, the media, academics, Muslims, feminists, and/or garden variety lemmings assert that Islam respects women, that it does not sanction the mistreatment of women, and/or that Western culture is a rape culture on par with ISIS. But no matter how persistently or how deeply these fools keep their increasingly vulnerable heads in the sand, it will not change reality. Quite the opposite. By denying the truth, these liars, apologists, and moral relativists fuel violence, rape, torture, enslavement, and death.

We must (more than) make up for the damage they inflict. So let us get about the task of educating others to make sure this reality does not take hold in America. Let us do our part to make sure that women and girls in the United States do not wind up victims of rape jihad.

Huge hat tips: Counterjihad Report, Pat Condell, Atlas Shrugs, and Gatestone Institute, with additional hat tips to: Jihad Watch, The Conservative Papers, Creeping Sharia, The Glazov Gang, and Ruthfully Yours

NATO is harbouring the Islamic State

1-uPGE-GLlKmVVEvfyKjqzHwWhy France’s brave new war on ISIS is a sick joke, and an insult to the victims of the Paris attacks

INSURGE INTELLIGENCEby Nafeez Ahmed, Nov. 19, 2015:

“We stand alongside Turkey in its efforts in protecting its national security and fighting against terrorism. France and Turkey are on the same side within the framework of the international coalition against the terrorist group ISIS.”

Statement by French Foreign Ministry, July 2015

The 13th November Paris massacre will be remembered, like 9/11, as a defining moment in world history.

The murder of 129 people, the injury of 352 more, by ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) acolytes striking multiple targets simultaneously in the heart of Europe, mark a major sea-change in the terror threat.

For the first time, a Mumbai-style attack has occurred on Western soil — the worst attack on Europe in decades. As such, it has triggered a seemingly commensurate response from France: the declaration of a nationwide state of emergency, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1961 Algerian war.

ISIS has followed up with threats to attack Washington and New York City.

Meanwhile, President Hollande wants European Union leaders to suspend the Schengen Agreement on open borders to allow dramatic restrictions on freedom of movement across Europe. He also demands the EU-wide adoption of the Passenger Name Records (PNR) system allowing intelligence services to meticulously track the travel patterns of Europeans, along with an extension of the state of emergency to at least three months.

Under the extension, French police can now block any website, put people under house arrest without trial, search homes without a warrant, and prevent suspects from meeting others deemed a threat.

“We know that more attacks are being prepared, not just against France but also against other European countries,” said the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. “We are going to live with this terrorist threat for a long time.”

Hollande plans to strengthen the powers of police and security services under new anti-terror legislation, and to pursue amendments to the constitution that would permanently enshrine the state of emergency into French politics. “We need an appropriate tool we can use without having to resort to the state of emergency,” he explained.

Parallel with martial law at home, Hollande was quick to accelerate military action abroad, launching 30 airstrikes on over a dozen Islamic State targets in its de facto capital, Raqqa.

France’s defiant promise, according to Hollande, is to “destroy” ISIS.

The ripple effect from the attacks in terms of the impact on Western societies is likely to be permanent. In much the same way that 9/11 saw the birth of a new era of perpetual war in the Muslim world, the 13/11 Paris attacks are already giving rise to a brave new phase in that perpetual war: a new age of Constant Vigilance, in which citizens are vital accessories to the police state, enacted in the name of defending a democracy eroded by the very act of defending it through Constant Vigilance.

Mass surveillance at home and endless military projection abroad are the twin sides of the same coin of national security, which must simply be maximized as much as possible.

“France is at war,” Hollande told French parliament at the Palace of Versailles.

“We’re not engaged in a war of civilizations, because these assassins do not represent any. We are in a war against jihadist terrorism which is threatening the whole world.”

The friend of our enemy is our friend

Conspicuously missing from President Hollande’s decisive declaration of war, however, was any mention of the biggest elephant in the room: state-sponsorship.

Syrian passports discovered near the bodies of two of the suspected Paris attackers, according to police sources, were fake, and likely forged in Turkey.

Earlier this year, the Turkish daily Meydan reported citing an Uighur source that more than 100,000 fake Turkish passports had been given to ISIS. The figure, according to the US Army’s Foreign Studies Military Office (FSMO), is likely exaggerated, but corroborated “by Uighurs captured with Turkish passports in Thailand and Malaysia.”

Further corroboration came from a Sky News Arabia report by correspondent Stuart Ramsey, which revealed that the Turkish government was certifying passports of foreign militants crossing the Turkey-Syria border to join ISIS. The passports, obtained from Kurdish fighters, had the official exit stamp of Turkish border control, indicating the ISIS militants had entered Syria with full knowledge of Turkish authorities.

The dilemma facing the Erdogan administration is summed up by the FSMO: “If the country cracks down on illegal passports and militants transiting the country, the militants may target Turkey for attack. However, if Turkey allows the current course to continue, its diplomatic relations with other countries and internal political situation will sour.”

This barely scratches the surface. A senior Western official familiar with a large cache of intelligence obtained this summer from a major raid on an ISIS safehouse told the Guardian that “direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now ‘undeniable.’”

The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. “The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed,” said the official. “There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both.”

In a rare insight into this brazen state-sponsorship of ISIS, a year agoNewsweek reported the testimony of a former ISIS communications technician, who had travelled to Syria to fight the regime of Bashir al-Assad.

The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross the “border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February.” ISIS militants would freely travel “through Turkey in a convoy of trucks,” and stop “at safehouses along the way.”

The former ISIS communication technician also admitted that he would routinely “connect ISIS field captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions,” adding that “the people they talked to were Turkish officials… ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks.”

In January, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military were leaked online, showing that Turkey’s intelligence services had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles, mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck “to the al-Qaeda terror organisation” in Syria.

According to other ISIS suspects facing trial in Turkey, the Turkish national military intelligence organization (MIT) had begun smuggling arms, including NATO weapons to jihadist groups in Syria as early as 2011.

The allegations have been corroborated by a prosecutor and court testimony of Turkish military police officers, who confirmed that Turkish intelligence was delivering arms to Syrian jihadists from 2013 to 2014.

Documents leaked in September 2014 showed that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had financed weapons shipments to ISIS through Turkey. A clandestine plane from Germany delivered arms in the Etimesgut airport in Turkey and split into three containers, two of which were dispatched to ISIS.

A report by the Turkish Statistics Institute confirmed that the government had provided at least $1 million in arms to Syrian rebels within that period, contradicting official denials. Weapons included grenades, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, firearms, ammunition, hunting rifles and other weapons — but the Institute declined to identify the specific groups receiving the shipments.

Information of that nature emerged separately. Just two months ago, Turkish police raided a news outlet that published revelations on how the local customs director had approved weapons shipments from Turkey to ISIS.

Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS’ expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country.

Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People’s Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million — that was over a year ago.

By now, this implies that Turkey has facilitated over $1 billion worth of black market ISIS oil sales to date.

Read more

Also see:

Social Justice Warriors Slam America’s Oldest Muslim Brotherhood Group on Twitter

7d062cf7-e623-409b-b23f-ef7d45958f50Town Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Nov. 25, 2015:

On Friday, a hashtag campaign targeting what was described as systematic racism exploded over social media. The tag, #BlackinMSA, drew out the experiences of African American Muslims who experienced prejudice in Muslim Student Association (MSA) Chapters, on college campuses.

The Muslim Students Association, founded in 1962, is the oldest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States, according to archival Brotherhood records submitted in Federal Court. A NYPD intelligence report describes MSA as“potential incubators” of terrorism, and multiple MSA leaders and members have been arrested on terrorism related charges since 9/11.

Social media users complained of coldness and bias from Arab and South Asian Muslims towards Black Muslims, including the use of the Arabic term “Abdeed” (slave) as a term for Blacks. Additionally, tweets focused on discrimination in the appointment of non-Arab Muslims to leadership positions within the MSA.


But the primary driver of the conversation appeared to be the lack of involvement with MSAs related to Black Lives Matter and related protests.

The campaign received only limited pushback from what appeared to be Arab Muslim twitter accounts, predominately focused

The hashtag campaign appears to have been the brainchild of Tariq Touré,steering committee member for the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative (MuslimARC). MuslimARC also directed the hashtag discussion with a poll question, and other tweets, raising questions about MSAs willingness to engage in the BLM movement and recent protest actions at University of Missouri.

According to Co-founder Margari Hill, MuslimARC was created in response to a call to action on the issue of the role of African American Muslims issued by Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Michigan Chapter head Dawud Walid. Walid receives a “special thanks” on MuslimARC’s website.

CAIR has been actively involved in supporting and participating in BLM protests, beginning as far back as the Ferguson case. Dawud Walid himself linked the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson with the FBI shooting death of Luqman Abdullah, the Detroit-based “Emir” of a group called “The National Ummah” headed by convicted cop-killer Jamil Abdullah Amin, the former Black Panther radical known as H.Rap Brown.

Amin played a key role in the formation of the Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), one of the first efforts to integrate indigenous African American Muslim Islamist groups like National Ummah, with the larger U.S.-based network, led by the Muslim Brotherhood. Luqman Abdullah was a board member of MANA prior to his death.

Interestingly, MuslimARC co-founder Hill also has an association with MANA, having served as the Curriculum Developer for the United Muslim Masjid (UMM). UMM a predominately African American Muslim organization led by Luqman Al-Haqq (AKA Kenny Gamble) a Philadelphia based Music mogul who has been accused of attempting to create a “Muslim-only enclave” in Philadelphia. Like Luqman Abdullah, Al-Haqq is a board member of MANA.

With the hashtag campaign aimed at forcing national MSA leadership to become more overtly involved in the BLM movement, it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. may be facing some blowback, from a campaign that has sought to position their Islamophobia narrative within the wider of racial politics.

This no doubt stems in part to an increasing merger between traditional Islamist ideology, and leftist social justice rhetoric.

For example, a popular Tarbiyah Guide (a curriculum developed by MB-linked entities for Islamic education of members,) references both traditional Muslim Brotherhood ideologues like Yusuf Al Qaradawi, S.A. Maududi, and Sayyid Qutb, but also leftist thinkers including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, in addition to the aforementioned Jamil Abdullah Amin.

This is not the only case where MB organizations have run afoul of a younger generation where Islamic grievances are incorporated into theories of intersectionality.

Back in April, MB groups squabbled amongst themselves after a coalition of groups endorse Turkey and opposed an Armenian genocide resolution, only to be denounced by campus level groups like MSAs and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP.)

It may be that we are seeing a generational challenge, as MB-linked entities responded to those who have been indoctrinated within a milieu of both Islamist and leftist social justice politics.

This younger generation, Muslim Brotherhood 2.0 so-to-speak, are as adept at referencing Qutb, as they are Frantz Fanon. Where they successfully navigated this challenge, as in the case of CAIR in the Ferguson protests, MB-linked groups open up additional allies for their cause. Where they fail, however, they face embarrassing public relations trouble, as was the case for #BlackinMSA.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Threat Information Office (TIO) at the Center for Security Policy.

Delegitimizing ISIS On Islamic Grounds: Criticism Of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi By Muslim Scholars

IRAQ-UNREST-IS-BAGHDADI-CALIPHMEMRI, by Prof. Ella Landau-Tasseron, Nov. 24, 2015:

The following is the executive summary of Prof. Ella Landau-Tasseron’s paper. The full paper is available here.

On September 19, 2014, a group of 126 Muslim scholars addressed an open letter to the ruler of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In it they severely criticize ISIS’ policies and actions, claiming that they are deviations from Islam, which is a merciful religion. In justifying their position, the critics sometimes cite the same texts used by ISIS, giving their own interpretation. It should be mentioned that the letter did not spark public debate in the Muslim world.

Below I present the points of the clerics’ criticism, with a short analysis of each point (marked by an asterisk).

  1. A Muslim claiming religious authority must have a formal education; he must correctly apply Koran,hadith and legal theory, consider all the texts relevant to any issue discussed, and avoid selective reading. ISIS religious authorities do not meet these requirements.

* Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic legal studies (Shari’a) from Baghdad University. This certainly makes him quite knowledgeable in Shari’a. Furthermore, reading sacred texts selectively is unavoidable because they always contain contradictions. The critics read selectively too, omitting or explaining away texts that do not fit their arguments.

  1. A religious authority must possess a mastery of Arabic. ISIS presents itself as the fulfilment of Allah’s promise in Koran 24: 55, “Allah has promised those who believe and do good works that He will establish them as successors (la-yastakhlifannahum) [to those who preceded them] on earth…” ISIS maintains that the word la-yastakhlifannahum, derived from the same root as the word khilafa, refers to Al-Baghdadi’s Caliphate. This interpretation discloses ignorance of Arabic, as it distorts the true meaning of the verse.

* This verse has always been interpreted as foretelling the victory and conquests of the Prophet and the early caliphate in the seventh century. ISIS, emulating the pristine model, understandably applies the verse to itself. True, the word la-yastakhlifannahum does not literally refer to a caliphate, but some pre-modern Muslims thought that it did. This means that ISIS has not introduced a new uninformed interpretation.

  1. It is forbidden to oversimplify the Shari’a and ignore established Islamic sciences and experts.

* The critics protest here the current trend of “democratizing religious knowledge,” in which autodidact Muslims read the sources for themselves and sometimes reach legal conclusions. This trend is facilitated by the internet and its appeal is great.

  1. Leniency is always preferable in religious matters. The propagation of Islam has always been done by preaching, not by coercion. ISIS’ actions contravene this Islamic principle.

* In devising this argument the critics resort to a practice that they censure ISIS for, namely take verses out of their context or rely on verses that are traditionally considered abrogated. It is also erroneous to say that Islam was always propagated only by preaching. Both history and Islamic law books prove otherwise.

  1. The Shari’a must not be applied rigidly and literally, as done by ISIS, but flexibly, according to circumstances of place and time.

* Indeed, Muslim scholars have always shown ingenuity in adapting Shari’a laws to changing realities. In modern times the debate around adaptability has intensified, as Muslims face problems resulting from a clash between Islamic and Western cultures and values. ISIS represents an ultra-puritan attitude which, in part at least, is precisely a response to Western and Westernized modernity. The critics take a more flexible approach.

  1. It is forbidden to kill the innocent, as ISIS often does. There must be a lawful cause for killing.

* “Lawful cause” is mentioned in the Koran but without specification, so the term is vague. Pre-modern Muslims debated whether unbelief was sufficient cause for killing, or only unbelief combined with aggression. Both positions are supported by Koranic verses and various interpretations and Prophetic sayings.

  1. ISIS kills journalists and aid-workers; these are comparable to envoys, whose killing is forbidden.

* This analogy drawn by the critics illustrates the feasibility of applying lenient traditional norms to modern circumstances by deduction. Another such analogy is made between the modern visa and the pre-modern aman, i.e. the legal institution that protected foreign visitors in Islamic lands and vice versa, on condition that they keep the laws of the host country. After 9/11, many Muslims argued that the perpetrators had American visas, comparable to aman given to Muslims in foreign countries. By committing a crime against their American hosts, these Muslims thus broke Islamic law.

  1. ISIS attacks Muslims, but jihad must be defensive and waged only against non- Muslims. Furthermore, it must be waged with a lawful cause, right intention, lawful goal and lawful conduct. The cause must be prior aggression against Muslims, the intention must be to fight in Allah’s way, the goal must be “to make Allah’s word supreme,” and the right conduct is to kill combatants only. ISIS deviates from all of these. The goal of jihad was achieved when the Arabian Peninsula was Islamized by the Prophet in 630-31 CE, so that offensive jihad has become redundant. The post-Prophet Islamic conquests cannot serve ISIS as a model because they were merely defensive. The Prophet’s execution of prisoners cannot serve ISIS as a model, because those prisoners were war criminals like those tried in Nuremberg. ISIS also errs by urging every Muslim to participate in jihad, because jihad is incumbent upon the community as a whole, not upon each and every Muslim.

*Most of the terms and categories used by the critics here are borrowed from the Western doctrine of just war. However, the rules of jihad are not entirely compatible with that doctrine. Contrary to the critics’ claim, the Koran, the hadith and pre-modern Islam did preach offensive war. In fact, the Islamic lawful goal of “making Allah’s word supreme” means establishing the reign of Islam by converting or subduing non-Muslims – either by preaching and persuasion or by violent means. Thus there is a contradiction between the critics’ two statements (“jihad is only defensive” and “jihad’s goal is to make Allah’s word supreme”). To resolve this contradiction the critics devise an innovative interpretation: The goal of jihad has already been achieved by the Prophet, they say, so only defensive jihad is now legitimate. To my knowledge, no pre-modern Muslim scholar has offered this interpretation.

As for the right conduct of war, early Muslim scholars set some rules, such as “do not kill children,” but these were later voided of content by means of ingenious interpretations. Similarly, the Koranic rules concerning prisoners of war stipulated that they may be released for a ransom or gratuitously. Muslim jurists complemented these rules based on reported actions of the Prophet, so that prisoners could also be executed or enslaved. It seems that the earliest rules of conduct for jihad are more compatible with current international norms than are the classical Shari’a regulations.

The critics do not take into account all the Koranic verses and reports relevant to the issue of jihad (thus contravening their own advice to al-Baghdadi). In particular, they omit to mention the traditional interpretations of the so-called “sword verses,” and many other verses and hadiths, which enjoin the Muslims to fight infidels “in the way of Allah” regardless of the need for defense.

Furthermore, the terms lawful cause, right goal, and right intention are fuzzy. They appear to be means to restrict offensive war, but they are not necessarily so. In Islam there is precedent for regarding as aggressors all non-Muslims who refuse to convert, thus providing a “lawful cause” for attacks on them even if they have not committed actual aggression against Muslims. The goal of making Allah’s word reign supreme is “right” in Islamic terms, but it does not stipulate restrictions on offensive war. As for the conduct of war, ISIS can easily find in the Islamic sources precedents or justifications for most of their actions.

  1. It is forbidden to label other Muslims “unbelievers” (takfir), as ISIS does.

* Labeling other Muslims “infidels” or “unbelievers” has serious consequences, because in Islam apostates must be executed. The consensus in pre-modern Sunni Islam has been to refrain from excommunication as much as possible. Since the mid-twentieth century, radical Muslims use takfir in order to legitimize violence against governments in Muslim countries, and against other Muslims in general.

  1. ISIS persecutes Christians although they have had a covenant with the Muslims for 1,400 years (dhimma, meaning that they paid a poll tax, abided by certain restrictions, and were protected in return).  Moreover, Koran 9:29 – “Fight those who have been given the Scripture but do not believe in Allah… until they pay the poll tax, humiliated” – applies only to those amongst the Peoples of the Book (Christians, Jews and Sabians) who are aggressors. The Christian of Arab descent, who were allies of the Muslims, had a special status, in which they did not pay a humiliating poll tax but rather a non-humiliating tax equivalent to the zakat tax paid by Muslims.

* The dhimma was abolished by the Ottomans in 1856. Nevertheless the predecessor of ISIS, “The Islamic State of Iraq,” declared the dhimma contract null and void in 2007 on the grounds that thedhimmi had violated it. A new dhimma covenant was drafted by ISIS in 2015. Thus the organization in fact offers Christians the same three options traditionally offered to most non-Muslims: Convert to Islam, pay tribute and become protected-humiliated subjects (dhimmi), or face the sword. By this measure ISIS equates itself to the second caliph, Umar bin al-Khattab (d. 644 CE), considered to be the initiator of the dhimma arrangement.

As for the historical arguments regarding the special status of Christian Arabs, it has some basis. The Christians of the Arabian Peninsula were part of Arab Muslim society, and apparently experienced no discrimination. The Christian Arabs in the Fertile Crescent did pay tribute, but were treated more leniently than Christians of other descent.

I know no basis in the sources for the argument that Koran 9:29 only applies to defensive war against aggressive Christians (or Jews, etc.)

  1. ISIS harshly persecutes the Yazidis, but they belong to the Peoples of the Scriptures, like Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists and many others. All of these were recognized by the greatest pre-modern Muslim scholars as eligible for the protected-humiliating status, and the Yazidis must be accorded the same status and must not be persecuted.

* The Koran accorded the protected status only to “the Peoples of Scriptures,” identified as Jews, Christians and Sabians. Other idolaters must either convert or face the sword. However, early Muslim scholars recognized most non-Muslims as comparable to the Peoples of the Scriptures, and accorded them the protected-humiliating status; this is the basis of the critics’ demand regarding the Yazidis. ISIS, however, claims that the Yazidis are idolaters, on the basis of research conducted by ISIS scholars.

  1. 12. ISIS takes slaves, but enslavement is forbidden. Islam always strove to abolish slavery, which indeed has been banned throughout the world based on a universal, including Muslim, consensus.

* Contrary to the critics’ claim, the Shari’a never strove to abolish slavery but only to regularize it. It was, however, considered virtuous to set Muslim slaves free. Slavery has indeed been abolished, at least in theory, by the international community, but ISIS members do not regard the international community as a model. They see themselves as reviving a custom of the Prophet when they enslave prisoners of war and take slave girls as concubines.

  1. 13. It is forbidden to coerce anyone to convert to Islam. Many verses in the Koran express toleration of non-Muslims. It is also forbidden to enforce the Shari’a in the public sphere, because, as the Koran says (13:31, 26:4), Allah wants there to be infidels and sinners on earth.

* Pre-modern Muslim scholars had to determine the attitude of Islamic law towards non-Muslims, given the contradictory Koranic verses such as: “No compulsion is there in religion…”(2:256) versus the recurrent injunction to fight non-Muslims “until all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 2:193, 8:39, 48:16). Pre-modern Muslim scholars considered as abrogated, or otherwise explained away, the tolerance verses; the injunction to wage jihad was considered binding, superseding all the verses expressing tolerance. Differences in detail notwithstanding, the scholars established that some groups must be coerced to convert to Islam or die, such as Arab idolaters, apostates and Manicheans. Others must not be coerced, but they must surrender to the Muslims. The critics in fact refute the pre-modern consensus by reestablishing the validity of the tolerance verses.

Enforcing the Shari’a in the public sphere is by no means an ISIS innovation. In pre-modern Shari’a books it is considered one of the major tasks of the Muslim ruler. Religious police (hisba) in some modern Muslim countries and in ISIS territories continues this tradition.

  1. ISIS denies women their rights, their freedom of movement, and their right to study, work, and dress according to their taste. Forced marriages are also practiced under ISIS. Islam forbids all this.

* The Shari’a contains many rules that, by modern liberal standards, are discriminatory against women. However, these may be interpreted and applied in a variety of ways. The critics point at ways to improve social conditions for Muslim women without renouncing the Shari’a or adopting a foreign system of law.

  1. ISIS kills children and forces children to participate in fighting and other atrocities. Islam forbids such practices.

* As far as I can tell there are indeed no Islamic legal precedents, or reports about the Prophet, that can justify ISIS’ treatment of children.

  1. ISIS enacts the Koranic punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.

* The Koran stipulates specific punishments for certain crimes, such as public stoning for unlawful sexual intercourse and amputation of hand and/or foot for theft. Pre-modern Islamic law usually evinces a strong tendency to limit the application of the hudud as far as possible, by complex procedures for establishing guilt and by defining mitigating circumstances. Apparently, a nascent, controversial Islamic regime such as ISIS may attempt to show Islamic fervor through strict application of the hudud.

17-18. The torture and abuse inflicted by ISIS on both the living and the dead are un-Islamic, and they harm Islam’s image among other nations.

* The Shari’a does not enjoin torture and abuse; sometimes it bans such conduct explicitly. For example, Prophetic sayings forbid abuse of the dead and execution by fire. ISIS justified the latter atrocity as a measure-for-measure act: The Jordanian Pilot was executed by fire because he caused innocent people to burn by bombing them.

  1. ISIS members attribute their conquests to Allah, thus attributing to Him the atrocities that they commit during their conquests. It is forbidden to imply that Allah is responsible for evil acts.

* The critics adduce here an innovative theological argument against the perpetration of atrocities.

  1. ISIS destroys tombs of prophets and of Companions of the Prophet; but visiting such tombs is permitted, even beneficial, and destroying them is forbidden. This is indicated by the Koran and hadith, and by the fact that the Companions buried the Prophet and the first two caliphs near the mosque in Medina.

* The issue of pilgrimage to holy graves has been hotly debated among Muslims for centuries. Some regarded it as an infringement upon monotheism. Vehement opponents to these customs were, among others, Ibn Taymiyya and Muhammad b. Abd al-Wahhab. ISIS is not the first Islamic movement to oppose the veneration of the dead and the cult of tombs.

  1. ISIS has rebelled against legitimate rulers, which the Shari’a forbids. A legitimate ruler may be deposed if he becomes an avowed apostate or prevents Muslims from practicing Islam. However, a ruler may not be deposed merely for being unjust, hated or even for failing to implement the Shari’a.

* Apparently, the critics assume that no Muslim ruler is likely to openly renounce Islam or ban the Shari’a; therefore, no rebellion is likely to be licit by Islamic law. They cite Koranic verses to the effect that failure to judge by Allah’s law brands one as a sinner, a wrongdoer or an unbeliever (Koran 5:44-45, 47) – but not such that falls beyond the pale of Islam. This quietist attitude developed under the traumatic impact of the early civil wars (fitan, 656-661, 680-692 CE) and became a Sunni consensus. Radicals despise this attitude and rise against Muslim governments precisely because these governments fail to judge by Allah’s law as they understand it. The radicals cite precisely the same verses as do the critics to justify their revolutionary view.

  1. It is forbidden to declare a caliphate without the consensus of all Muslims, lest internecine wars ensue. If ISIS regards the 1.5 billion Muslims currently living around the globe to be believers, then al-Baghdadi cannot be caliph, because they do not all accept him. Conversely, if ISIS considers all Muslims except its followers to be infidels, then the number of its followers is too small to establish a caliphate, because a small community of Muslims does not require a caliph.

* Here the critics again express the attitude born of the historical Sunni trauma of internal wars (fitan) and reflect the theories banning opposition to government. The argument that a small number of Muslims needs no caliph has no basis in the Islamic sources. Indeed the early history of the caliphate points to the opposite, since the first caliph was rejected by most of the Arab tribes and even by some of the Companions of the Prophet. Tradition dealt with the problem by reporting that all the Companions eventually complied, and by branding the remaining dissidents as apostates (i.e., as non-Muslims).

23-24.It is forbidden to abolish the boundaries of nation states, as ISIS does. It is also unjust to call upon foreigners to immigrate into Syria and Iraq at the expense of the local population; in fact, it is similar to Israel’s crime of replacing Palestinians with Jewish immigrants. Contrary to ISIS’ doctrine, migration ceased to be an obligatory or a meritorious Islamic act after the conquest of Mecca in 630 CE.

* Arabs and Muslims did not reject the concept of nation-states even though, in the Middle East, it was related to the demise of the Ottoman caliphate and was artificially implemented by imperial powers. However, the concept of nation-states has no root in the Shari’a. For radicals who wish to emulate pristine Islam, nation-states are a foreign element that must be uprooted, and migration to the one true Islamic caliphate is currently the right course of action, just as it was in the Prophet’s time. Long after the Prophet’s time, Muslim scholars usually held that Muslims should not live in a land where they were not free to practice their religion. ISIS can easily claim that the restrictions in Europe on the veil, and on the level of the sound of the call for prayer (adhan), are restrictions on Muslims that necessitate their migration to a truly Islamic land.


The critics are appalled by ISIS’ atrocities and do their best to delegitimize it. They make no reference to the fact that ISIS is building an Islamic state that revives past Islamic institutions, such as the contract between community and ruler (bay’a), the seizure of war booty, the poll tax on Christians, the Koranic punishments for specific crimes (hudud), Shari’a courts and civil courts (mazalim), the choice offered to polytheists between conversion and the sword, and the owning of slaves. ISIS’ goal, to make Allah’s word supreme (by force if necessary), is directly derived from pre-modern Sunni consensus. In modern times most Muslims are not driven to commit atrocities in order to implement this goal. However, objecting to it explicitly or refuting it convincingly is a difficult task, as this goal and the jihad needed to achieve it, are based on the core texts of Islam.

Both ISIS and its critics rely on Islamic texts, sometimes the very same texts. The nature and content of these texts require selective reading and allow various and even contradictory conclusions.

 *Ella Landau-Tasseron is a retired professor at the Department for Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research fields are early Islamic history, the Arabian tribal system, Islamic political institutions, hadith, Islamic historiography, and jihad. Among her publications are a series of articles on the tribal society in pre- and early Islamic times, two monographs on the institution of the Islamic “oath of allegiance,” and a monograph on non-combatants in Islamic thought.


In this interview Dr. Gorka discusses at length the possible opportunities for delegitimizing Jihadists using Information Operations:

Published on Oct 18, 2015 by WUCF TV

What is the terrorism threat to the United States today? Sebastian Gorka, a chaired professor at Marine Corp University and an international security and terrorism expert, has insight on both the dangers and opportunities.

‘Jihad Olympics’ Take Two: Al-Qaeda Shows Its Muscle in Mali

Security forces rescues hostage in Mali (Photo: Video screenshot)

Security forces rescues hostage in Mali (Photo: Video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Nov. 26, 2015:

When al-Qaeda struck a hotel in Mali exactly one week after the Islamic State’s attacks in Paris, it was another competition in what we’ve dubbed the “Jihad Olympics.” Al-Qaeda’s latest assault also doubled as an attack ad against the Islamic State (ISIS), contrasting its relative mercy towards Muslims with the Islamic State’s complete disregard for Muslim casualties.

Watch Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst, Prof. Ryan Mauro, on FOX News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom” as news broke of the attacks in Mali and the anchor noted our correct prediction of Al-Qaeda’s responsibility:

Responsibility for the attacks was claimed by two al-Qaeda branches: al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Al-Mourabitoun. The Macina Liberation Front, a group that has links to Al-Qaeda but has not formally sworn allegiance, later also took credit.

Aside from the obvious fact that al-Qaeda believes it is required by Allah to carry out attacks like what we saw in Mali, the timing strongly suggests it wanted—and desperately needed—to show it still has a pulse. Success is seen as Allah’s endorsement, so al-Qaeda’s decline since 2001 and the rise of the Islamic State since 2014 have potentially existential consequences for the group.

Success wins arguments between Islamists. There are lengthy debates between Islamists referencing Islamic scripture and legal rulings and scholars’ interpretations, but at the end of the day, there’s no stronger argument than success (a.k.a. Allah’s blessing).

Temporary setbacks may be shrugged off as tests of faith, but undeniable defeat will cause even the most confident-sounding jihadist to privately question how he has offended Allah. This can be seen in letters between senior al-Qaeda leaders and public criticism from former al-Qaeda supporters, including a mentor to Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri.

A second purpose of the Mali attacks was to serve as the jihadist equivalent of a political attack ad against the Islamic State. al-Qaeda made sure to release hostages who could recite verses from the Quran in order to minimize Muslim casualties, regardless of whether those Muslim hostages support the group or not.

Al-Qaeda supporters online immediately pointed this out. al-Qaeda derides the Islamic State as being equivalent to the Khawarij (or Kharijites), a puritanical Islamic sect that waged war against the ruling caliph and branded rival Muslims as apostates deserving of death. The comparison stings ISIS enough that its propaganda regularly addresses it.

Of course, the parallels can just as easily be seen with al-Qaeda and all the Muslim blood it has on its hands. The private communications of al-Qaeda leaders indicate they believe that its targeting of Muslims was frowned upon by Allah and so decided to calibrate their massacres. Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban’s condemnation of the Pakistani Taliban’s massacre of Muslim children in Peshawar is an example of this course correction.

The “Jihad Olympics” can produce the desired headlines, such as news that al-Qaeda has delivered a “severe blow” to the Islamic State in the Golan Heights area by suicide bombing the leadership of one of its militias (the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigades). But the terrorist-on-terrorist violence comes with a price.

Attacks like those in Paris and Mali are benchmarks in the competition that each group must achieve, especially as its capabilities are doubted. The Islamic State attacked an Italian priest in Bangladesh not only because he is a legitimate target in their minds, but because Bangladesh is a focal point of a new al-Qaeda affiliate that attacked two publishers there only weeks earlier.

The competition and inter-jihadist bloodshed only raises the pressure on each group to attack Western targets. And the gold medal in this “Jihad Olympics” will unfortunately be won by whoever does the most damage inside Western countries, especially the United States.

Radical Mosques in America: Is There One Near You?

Radical-Mosques-US-HPClarion has identified over 80 Islamist orgs/mosques in the US, resulting in prominent media coverage on FOX News and the Daily Caller website.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Nov. 26, 2015:

The Clarion Project has identified over 80 Islamist organizations including mosques in the United States, resulting in prominent media coverage on FOX News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” and theDaily Caller website.

Watch Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst, Prof. Ryan Mauro, on “Fox & Friends” discussing four of the radical mosques and the need to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization:

The four organizations discussed in the segment are:

The segment follows the Daily Caller’s creation of a map of over 80 radical mosques based on Clarion’s research. This is about four percent of the estimated 2,106 mosques in the U.S., the news site wrote.

In addition to those 83 sites, there are many other Islamist organizations operating in the U.S. and mosques due to be written about. You can learn about Islamist groups in your state by searching the Islamist Organizations in America section of our website that is continuously updated.

The North American Islamic Trust’s (NAIT’s) website says it owns mosques in 42 states and has stated that it owns the titles to over 325 properties.

Click here for a partial list of mosques owned by NAIT

In January, a prominent Muslim leader in the United Kingdom with links to the Muslim Brotherhood estimated that half of the mosques in America were founded by Brotherhood members.

Senator Ted Cruz has introduced important legislation to help get the Muslim Brotherhood designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The House version of the bill was introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and is now endorsed by five additional representatives.

We encourage readers to ask their congressmen and Senators (and presidential candidates) for their statements on this legislation and/or their general position on designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

Please send us any written or recorded statements so we can update our website to document where our leaders stand.

Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

The Controversy over Syrian Refugees Misses the Question We Should Be Asking

Syrian refugees cross to HungaryNational Review by Andrew McCarthy, Nov. 28, 2015:

The jihad waged by radical Islam rips at France from within. The two mass-murder attacks this year that finally induced President Francois Hollande to concede a state of war are only what we see.

Unbound by any First Amendment, the French government exerts pressure on the media to suppress bad news. We do not hear much about the steady thrum of insurrection in the banlieues: the thousands of torched automobiles, the violence against police and other agents of the state, the pressure in Islamic enclaves to ignore the sovereignty of the Republic and conform to the rule of sharia.

What happens in France happens in Belgium. It happens in Sweden where much of Malmo, the third largest city, is controlled by Muslim immigrant gangs — emergency medical personnel attacked routinely enough that they will not respond to calls without police protection, and the police in turn unwilling to enter without back-up. Not long ago in Britain, a soldier was killed and nearly beheaded in broad daylight by jihadistsknown to the intelligence services; dozens of sharia courts now operate throughout the country, even as Muslim activists demand more accommodations. And it was in Germany, which green-lighted Europe’s ongoing influx of Muslim migrants, that Turkey’s Islamist strongmanRecep Tayyip Erdogan proclaimed that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in their new Western countries is “a crime against humanity.”

RELATED: Obama’s Moral Hypocrisy on the Syrian-Refugee Question Is Astounding

So how many of us look across the ocean at Europe and say, “Yeah, let’s bring some of that here”?

None of us with any sense. Alas, “bring it here” is the order of the day in Washington, under the control of leftists bent on fundamentally transforming America (Muslims in America overwhelmingly support Democrats) and the progressive-lite GOP, which fears the “Islamophobia”smear nearly as much as the “racist” smear.

This, no doubt, is why what is described as the “controversy over Syrian refugees” is among the most deceitful public debates in recent memory — which, by Washington standards, is saying something.

RELATED: There Are Serious, Unbigoted Reasons to Be War of a Flood of Syrian Refugees

Under a Carter administration scheme, the Refugee Admissions Program, the United States has admitted hundreds of thousands of aliens since 1980 — and, as the Center for Immigration Studies explains, asylum petitions have surged since the mid-Nineties. If there is a refugee “crisis,” it most certainly is no fault of ours: For example, the U.S. took in two-thirds of the world’s refugees resettled in 2014, with Canada a distant second, admitting about 10 percent.

Those figures come from an invaluable briefing by Refugee Resettlement Watch, which illustrates that the Syrian component is but a fraction of what we must consider. Tens of thousands of what are called “refugees” have come to our shores from Muslim-majority countries. From Iraq alone, the number is 120,000 since 2007, notwithstanding the thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars sacrificed to make Iraq livable.

Many of the refugees are steered to our country by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Naturally, the UNHRC has a history of bashing Israel on behalf of Palestinian Islamists — indeed, it works closely with the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, one of Hamas’s most notorious sympathizers. The UNHRC works in tandem with the State Department, which resettles the refugees throughout the U.S. with the assistance of lavishly compensated contractors (e.g., the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, other Christian and Jewish outfits, and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants) — often absent any meaningful consultation with the states in which Washington plants these assimilation-resistant imports.

Responsibility for vetting the immigrants rests with the Department of Homeland Security. As the ongoing controversy has illustrated, however, a background check is only as good as the available information about a person’s background. In refugee pipelines like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan, such information is virtually nonexistent. (But don’t worry, we can rest assured that the UNHRC is doing a fine job.)

RELATED: Media Coverage of Europe’s Migrant Crisis Ignores the Long-Term Problems it Poses

Let’s assume for fantasy’s sake, though, that the vetting is perfect — that we have comprehensive, accurate information on each refugee’s life up to the moment of admission. We would still have a calamity.

There are two reasons for this, and they are easily grasped by the mass of Americans outside the Beltway.

First, vetting only works if you vet for the right thing. Washington, in its delusional Islamophilia, vets only for ties to terrorism, which it defines as “violent extremism” in purblind denial of modern terrorism’s Islamist ideological moorings. As the deteriorating situation in Europe manifests, our actual challenge is Islamic supremacism, of which jihadist terrorism is only a subset.

For nearly a quarter-century, our bipartisan governing class has labored mightily to suppress public discussion of the undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism. Consequently, many Americans are still in the dark about sharia, classical Islam’s societal framework and legal code. We should long ago have recognized sharia as the bright line that separates authentic Muslim moderates, hungry for the West’s culture of reason and individual liberty, from Islamic supremacists, resistant to Western assimilation and insistent on incremental accommodation of Muslim law and mores.

RELATED: Why Does the Left Continue to Insist that Islamic Terrorism Has Nothing to Do with Islam?

The promotion of constitutional principles and civic education has always been foundational to the American immigration and naturalization process. We fatally undermine this process by narrowly vetting for terrorism rather than sharia adherence.

Yes, I can already hear the slander: “You are betraying our commitment to religious liberty.” Please. Even if there were anything colorable to this claim, we are talking about inquiring into the beliefs of aliens who want to enter our country, not citizens entitled to constitutional protections.

But the claim is not colorable in any event — it just underscores how willful blindness to our enemies’ ideology has compromised our security. Only a small fraction of Islamic supremacism involves tenets that, in the West, should be regarded as inviolable religious conviction (e.g., the oneness of Allah, the belief that Mohammed is the final prophet, the obligation to pray five times daily). No one in America has any interest in interfering with that. For Muslims adherent to classical sharia, however, the rest of their belief system has nothing to do with religion (except as a veneer). It instead involves the organization of the state, comprehensive regulation of economic and social life, rules of military engagement, and imposition of a draconian criminal code.

RELATED: The Trouble with the ‘Nation of Immigrants’ Argument

Unlike the Judeo-Christian principles that informed America’s founding, classical sharia does not abide a separation of spiritual from civic and political life. Therefore, to rationalize on religious-liberty grounds our conscious avoidance of Islamist ideology is to miss its thoroughgoing anti-constitutionalism.

Sharia rejects the touchstone of American democracy: the belief that the people have a right to govern themselves and chart their own destiny. In sharia governance, the people are subjects not citizens, and they are powerless to question, much less to change, Allah’s law. Sharia systematically discriminates against women and non-Muslims. It is brutal in its treatment of apostates and homosexuals. It denies freedom of conscience, free expression, property rights, economic liberty, and due process of law. It licenses wars of aggression against infidels for the purpose of establishing sharia as the law of the land.

Sharia is also heavily favored by Muslims in majority-Muslim countries. Polling consistently tells us that upwards of two-thirds of Muslims in the countries from which we are accepting refugees believe sharia should be the governing system.

RELATED: The Left’s Dishonest Biblical Argument for Taking in Syrian Refugees

Thus, since we are vetting for terrorism rather than sharia-adherence, and since we know a significant number of Muslims are sharia-adherent, we are missing the certainty that we are importing an ever-larger population hostile to our society and our Constitution — a population that has been encouraged by influential Islamist scholars and leaders to form Muslim enclaves throughout the West.

This leads seamlessly to the second reason why the influx of refugees is calamitous. Not only are we vetting for the wrong thing, we are ignoring the dynamics of jihadism. The question is not whether we are admitting Muslims who currently have ties to terrorist organizations; it is whether we are admitting Muslims who are apt to become violent jihadists after they settle here.

RELATED: ‘Je Suis … qui?’: A Report from the Banlieues

The jihadism that most threatens Europe now, and that has been a growing problem in the United States for years, is the fifth-column variety. This is often referred to as “homegrown terrorism,” but that is a misnomer. The ideology that ignites terrorism within our borders is not native: It is imported. Furthermore, it is ubiquitously available thanks to modern communications technology

In assessing the dynamic in which ideological inspiration evolves into actual jihadist attacks, we find two necessary ingredients: (1) a mind that is hospitable to jihadism because it is already steeped in Islamic supremacism, and (2) a sharia-enclave environment that endorses jihadism and relentlessly portrays the West as corrupt and hostile.

Our current refugee policies promote both factors.

RELATED: France’s No-Go Zones: Assimilation Resistant Muslims Are the Real Refugee Problem

One last point worth considering: Washington’s debate over refugee policy assumes an unmet American obligation to the world. It is as if we were not already doing and sacrificing far more than every other country combined. It is as if there were not dozens of Islamic countries, far closer than the United States to refugee hot-spots, to which it would be sensible to steer Muslim migrants.

Yet, there is nothing obligatory about any immigration policy, including asylum. There is no global right to come here. American immigration policy is supposed to serve the national interests of the United States. Right now, American immigration policy is serving the interests of immigrants at the expense of American national security and the financial security of distressed American workers.

Our nation is nearing $20 trillion in debt, still fighting in the Middle East, and facing the certain prospect of combat surges to quell the rising threat of jihadism. So why is Congress, under the firm control of Republicans, paying for immigration policies that exacerbate our peril?

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.


Another great interview with Dr. Sebastian Gorka on the ISIS Crisis!


Fox News Radio, by Vipp Jaswal, Nov. 25, 2015:

To make sense of it all, global terror expert Dr. Sebastian Gorka explains in detail what our leaders need to do and how they should do it. We discuss the next terror threat, the terror that exists within the refugee crisis, the readiness of our Nation to tackle terror and much, much more.

Take a listen to the crisis that is being caused by ISIS:

Jaswal audio

And check out Dr Gorka’s latest report on the ISIS threat to the USA here:

ISIS: The Threat to the United States

Islamic State’s Global Ambitions

3463035770Secure Freedom Radio with Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Diana West, Soeren Kern, Tom Rogan, Jim Hanson on November 25, 2015:

Dr. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University:  Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Seriousness of the Islamic State’s global threat
  • Growing threat of ISIS in the United States
  • How to deal with the refugee crisis and the Muslim Brotherhood

DIANA WEST, Author of “American Betrayal”: Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Multiculturalism’s negative effect on the West
  • Immigration destroying Western culture
  • Threats coming from Canada’s acceptance of Syrian refugees

SOEREN KERN, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute: Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Germany as a case study in the rise of European Islamic supremacism
  • Europe’s model of immigration verses that of the US
  • Angela Merkel perpetuating a public health crisis  through refugee resettlement
  • European Union’s failing model of a single currency and open borders

TOM ROGAN, Senior Fellow at the Steamboat Institute, and Columnist for National Review: Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Islamic State’s movement to the West
  • Concern of “No Go Zones” in Europe
  • Dealing with the hijra from the Middle East

JIM HANSON, Executive Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, former operator in the U.S. Army Special Forces: Podcast (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • Identifying the ideological background of Islamic jihadists
  • Danger of the violent and pre-violent stages of jihad to America
  • Importance in the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization
  • Review of Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet

The Watchman Show: After Paris, What’s Next for ISIS?

734546207001_4486609876001_video-still-for-video-4486681960001CBN News, by Erick Stakelbeck, Nov. 25, 2015:

On this week’s edition of The Watchman, we analyze the growing ISIS threat to America in the wake of the Paris attacks.

We also examine how Europe’s capital, Brussels, is in the crosshairs of radical Islamists.

ISIS equips ‘lone wolves’ in U.S. with how-to manual

isis (5)WND, by Michael Maloof, Nov. 26, 2015:

WASHINGTON – Against a backdrop of heightened security and of resistance to a potential massive influx of Muslim refugees into the United States, ISIS has issued guidance in a little-noticed manual for the so-called “lone wolves” who have become a major concern of U.S. law-enforcement officials.

The 63-page, English-language manual, “Safety and Security Guidelines for Lone Wolf Mujahideen,” said to have been authored by three former members of the intelligence service of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein who now work with ISIS in its self-proclaimed caliphate capital of Raqqa, Syria.

The manual, adapted from an older al-Qaida online Arabic language course, gives lessons to clandestine small-cell and individual jihadist.

It was first revealed by in October by the Middle East Research Institute, which said it came from a top ISIS disseminator on Twitter named Abu Naseeha.

Middle East security expert Michael W.S. Ryan said the manual’s publication demonstrates ISIS intends “to create a new hybrid war weapon in its arsenal against the United States, a hidden weapon designed to be difficult to trace operationally back to the jihadist organization or to detect before an operation is executed.”

“The Islamic State clearly wants their clandestine proxies to be able to survive to fight another day and, therefore, spend as much time designing an exit plan as they do designing the operation itself,” said Ryan, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, in an analysis on the Washington, D.C.-based organization’s website.

Ryan said that creating such cells at long distance is extremely difficult, but ISIS “has signaled its intention to try because such cells are so hard to detect before they act.”

“Thus, the challenge to U.S. law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the general public, ideally working together, is clearly laid out in their latest jihadist manual,” Ryan said.

Ryan was a political-military and foreign assistance specialist for the Departments of Defense and State with an emphasis on Middle East and North Africa from 1979 to 1997.

Blend in

To avoid detection by U.S. law enforcement, the manual calls on individuals and cells to maintain constant vigilance disclosing information on a strictly need-to-know basis and varying daily routines.

In addition, it covers how to devise a cover story, maintain safe houses, maintain weapons security and safely transport them and other cell operatives. It also tells how to perform surveillance of a target and detect surveillance by law enforcement.

The manual strongly advises covert cell operatives to blend in with their surroundings and not to draw any attention to themselves.

It instructs the operatives to recruit mostly family members or individuals with whom they have had lifelong relationships. In addition, covert operatives should not keep weapons or incriminating documents in their homes. They should hide their Muslim identity by wearing a Christian cross, ensure there is no Quran app on their smart phones, don’t exhibit prayer beads, cut off beards and stay away from mosques.

The manual would be especially attractive to cells and individuals such as the Chechen Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, as well as Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed in 2011 by a U.S. missile strike in Yemen.

These examples, along with a list of refugees who came to the U.S. but later became jihadists, recently was outlined in a report by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. His report revealed the names of 12 “vetted refugees” who were allowed to enter the U.S. but later joined terror cells and plotted attacks against the U.S.

The Tsarnaev brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan, who were naturalized U.S. citizens, set off two pressure cooker bombs on April 18, 2013, at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring 264.

Tamerlan was killed in a gunfight, but Dzhokhar was captured, tried, convicted and sentenced to execution, which still is under appeal. They obtained detailed instructions from the al-Qaida magazine “Inspire,” which gave a step-by-step description, complete with pictures, of how to make a pressure-cooker bomb.

Awlaki, an imam at a mosque in Virginia, preached to three of the 9/11 al-Qaida hijackers and was a mentor to U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, the perpetrator of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, which killing 13 people and wounded 33. Awlaki was the first U.S. citizen ordered killed by President Obama for terrorist activities.

Revelation of the ISIS manual also comes after FBI Director James Comey last month testified to Congress that there was no real way to conduct background checks on the tens of thousands of Muslim refugees the Obama administration wants to resettle in the U.S.

“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said. “And, so, if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interested reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing showing up because we have no record of them.”

The Tsarnaev brothers, along with al-Awlaki and their families, all were “vetted” prior to settling in the U.S.

Ryan said that it appeared ISIS was adaopting al-Qaida’s doctrine of individual and small-cell terrorism.

He suggested ISIS may be laying the groundwork for terrorist attacks within the U.S., Canada and other English speaking countries using local recruits for whom the U.S. is the “near” enemy.

ISIS in Raqqa appears to be planning to attack its “main far enemy,” the United States, Ryan said, “under the operational cover of home grown attacks by Americans or Canadians, instead of sending individual terrorists and small groups to fight against the United States and its allies from overseas.”

Canada, through its newly elected liberal prime minister, Justin Trudeau, has promised to allow some 25,000 Muslim refugees into Canada at the beginning of the year, and he will send aircraft to pick them up.

Trudeau has dismissed suggestions his plan would compromise Canada’s security. However, the refugees he would welcome, principally from Syria, have no validated documentation, making any vetting even more challenging not only to Canadian but U.S. law enforcement officials.


Islamic State Can Launch an Undetected WMD Attack on the US

islamic-state-chemical-attack-630x350By Brian Fairchild, Nov. 27, 2015:


  • Based on the analysis of the facts and findings below, as of November 27, 2015, the Islamic State has the intent and capability to launch an undetected WMD attack against the American homeland. Absent specific actionable intelligence, there is no way to predict the specific date or location of an attack, or the type of attack that will occur, but it is clear from the intelligence that such an attack is feasible and credible.

On November 15, 2015, White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes stated that the Islamic State aspires to attack the United States in a manner similar to the November 13, 2015 Paris attacks but does not have the capability to do so.  He based his assessment on only one criteria – the number of foreign fighters that had returned to Europe.  He said that while thousands of European foreign fighters have traveled to Syria and then returned, only 40 Americans are known to have gone to Syria and returned.  His assessment, however, does not address the key criteria that would allow an accurate assessment of the Islamic State’s intent and capability to launch such an attack.

The following analysis uses primary sources to answer the following relevant questions regarding the Islamic State’s capabilities:

  • Does it have the intent and desire to attack the United States?
  • Does it have the requisite number of personnel and operational experience to conduct such an attack?
  • Does it have access to conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and, if so, can it smuggle them into the country?
  • Does it have the financial ability to finance such an operation?

Once established, an analysis of these facts leads to general findings about the capabilities of the Islamic State, and these findings allow for a logical and credible forecast of its ability to launch such an attack against the homeland.


Intent and desire to attack the United States:

The Islamic State has issued many direct threats against the United States that illustrate its intent and desire to attack inside America.  The following are a few selected threats that illustrate this point.

  • In August 2014, IS declared war against the US in a document sent to the family of beheading victim James Foley. It was addressed to the “American government and their sheep like people” and threatened the following (NOTE:  all emphasis in the text was added by the Islamic State in the original):

Today our swords are unsheathed towards you, GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENS ALIKE!  AND WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL WE QUENCH OUR THIRST FOR YOUR BLOOD.  You do not spare our weak, elderly, women or children, so we will NOT spare yours!  You and your citizens will pay the price of your bombings!  The first of which being the blood of American citizen, James Foley.

  • The above threat was followed soon after by the Islamic State’s September 22, 2014, statement encouraging its followers to seek out and kill American, French, and Australian citizens in their homes with whatever weapons are available including cars, knives, and rocks.
  • On April 11, 2015, the Islamic State released an 11 minute video that specifically promised another 9/11-style spectacular attack against the American homeland.
  • On November 18, 2015, in the immediate aftermath of the Paris attacks, the Islamic State released two videos threatening attacks on the United States; one threatening to burn down the White House, the other showing images of New York’s Time Square in conjunction with a suicide bomber zipping his jacket over his suicide vest.


Threats that are not backed-up by trained, willing, and capable personnel are little more than propaganda.  The Islamic State, however, has the requisite number of trained, combat-hardened, and ideologically motivated personnel to conduct attacks against the United States.

  • The CIA estimates that the Islamic State has smuggled approximately 31,000 foreign fighters into Syria and Iraq.  These individuals hail from over 100 countries, including 250 Americans, and 5,000 Europeans.  But their sheer number of foreign fighters only tells part of the story.  There has also been a qualitative change in the character of today’s jihadists – they are more ideologically extreme, and much more brutal than the jihadists of the bin Laden era.  Because of the Islamic State’s extensive and widely disseminated video propaganda and statements of beheadings, crucifixions, rape, torture, the revival of slavery, and the inhumane execution of prisoners, there is no doubt that, before they even leave home, the thousands of foreign radical Muslim fighters that flock to the new caliphate do so fully understanding and embracing its barbaric ideology and actions.
  • In direct response to Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes’ assertion that the Islamic State is incapable of launching an attack against the US because relatively few Americans have gone to Syria and Iraq and returned, there is no Islamic State doctrine, policy, or ideological prohibition that requires it to create attack cells against the United States using only American operatives.
  • The Islamic State emerged from al Qaeda in Iraq which provides some insight into how the organization might prepare and conduct an attack against the United States, and the historical record reveals that no previous al Qaeda-directed attacks against the United States have employed American operatives. Rather, all previous al Qaeda-directed jihadi operatives, including all of the 9/11 conspirators, as well as Richard Reid (the Shoe Bomber), and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the Underwear Bomber), were non-Americans who entered the United States with legal visas.  None of these attacks were discovered by American or Western intelligence agencies prior to their commencement. 
  • The fact that no previous al Qaeda-directed attacks were conducted by American citizens is not to say, however, that the Islamic State does not have the capability to include American citizens in an attack cell.  Quite to the contrary, the Islamic State has an aggressive program to recruit Americans which has alarmed and overtaxed the FBI.  According to FBI Director James Comey, in just the last year, the Bureau’s Islamic State case load has exploded to 900 active cases, a number, he says, that is quickly reaching the point of exceeding the Bureau’s personnel and financial resources. Worse, he says that the bureau is stymied in monitoring the most important of these cases because of the Islamic State’s use of digital encryption technology, which enables it to “go dark”. 


A terrorist organization can have all the intent in the world and thousands of motivated personnel, but if it does not have actual experience in conducting military and clandestine operations its threats against an adversary are not necessarily credible.  The Islamic State, however, has extensive experience in conducting both military and clandestine operations.  

  • On August 21, 2014, then Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel addressed this very question when he stated that the Islamic State demonstrates “a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess” that represents an “imminent threat to every interest we have”.
  • This “…strategic and tactical military prowess” was demonstrated recently when, in less than two weeks’ time the Islamic State coordinated and carried-out the following three sophisticated clandestine attacks in Lebanon, Egypt and France:
  1. On November 12, 2015, just a day before the Paris attacks, an Islamic State team defeated the vaunted security measures of Hezbollah’s nerve-center in Lebanon and carried-out two suicide bombings, killing 43 and wounding 239.
  2. On October 31, 2015, Islamic State operatives conducted the first successful terrorist attack against a civilian airliner since September 11, 2001 when it thwarted security at the international airport at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt and placed an improvised explosive device on-board Russian Metrojet flight 9268. The bomb detonated approximately 20 minutes after take-off killing all 224 passengers.
  3. On November 13, 2015, the Islamic State alarmed all of the world’s western security and intelligence services when, undetected and by surprise, it conducted multi-location attacks in the middle of Paris where French security was operating at its highest alert status. In approximately half-an-hour, three teams, all armed with explosive vests and AK-47 automatic assault rifles, attacked six separate locations including the stadium in which the French president was watching a soccer game, murdering 129 individuals and wounding 350.   This was the worst terrorist attack in France since the end of WWII, and represents the realization of the West’s greatest fears – that foreign fighters would return from Syria and Iraq to wreak havoc.


As stated above, the Islamic State was able to smuggle explosives undetected into Lebanon, as well as through airport security in Egypt to place a device on-board the Russian Metrojet flight.  In Paris, it demonstrated that it had the ability to smuggle conventional explosives and AK-47 assault rifles into the center of Paris.  These operations prove conclusively that the Islamic State can smuggle conventional weapons and explosives into very secure areas.  Because of the brutal nature of the Islamic State and the fact that it recognizes no moral red-line, however, analysts must also consider the likelihood that future attacks in Europe or the United States will include weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, or radioactive weapons.

  • On November 19, 2015, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls warned of just this possibility in future attacks against France stating: “we know that there could also be a risk of chemical or biological weapons”.
  • On the same day, American and Iraqi intelligence officials revealed that the Islamic State created an organization dedicated to creating chemical weapons and has hired scientists from Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons program and elsewhere to accomplish this task.  Nobody knows how far the Islamic State’s chemical weapons program has progressed, but according to US officials, ISIS has already used mustard gas against in enemies in Iraq and Syria on at least four separate occasions. Weapons experts state that the Islamic State is likely only capable of manufacturing crude devices at this point, but a crude device detonated in a public space, such as a shopping mall, is all that is required for it to terrorize a civilian population.
  • Separate from creating its own arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, over a year ago, the Islamic State seized already existing chemical weapons from Iraq’s al Muthanna chemical weapons complex.  The seized weapons include munitions containing Sarin gas, Mustard gas, and the nerve agent VX.  The al Muthanna chemical weapons complex was Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons production line that weaponized these chemical agents in the form of mortar and artillery shells.  Many of these mortar and artillery rounds are not useable in their present form, but in 2006, then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. General Michael Maples stated that, while these munitions could not be used as originally intended because of corrosion, “the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents”. 
  • In July 2014, IS fighters seized 88 pounds of uranium compounds from the University of Mosul that can be used to construct a radioactive dirty bomb, and in late November 2014, Islamic State operatives boasted on Twitter that the Islamic State had created a dirty bomb from this material.  The Pentagon confirmed that the Islamic State has the capability to construct such a weapon.

Capability/Transporting WMD or conventional weapons into the United States:

Having access to such weapons of mass destruction and being able to transport them into the United States are two separate matters, which begs the question – “is it possible for the Islamic State to smuggle WMD into the United States?”

This question was definitively answered in March 2015 by US Marine General John Kelly, commander of US Southern Command in his testimony before Congress, in which he described the capabilities of drug smuggling networks and the possibility of terrorist organizations piggy-backing on these networks:

“Clearly, criminal networks can move just about anything on these smuggling pipelines. Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even quite easily bring weapons of mass destruction into the United States.

  • The Islamic State, however, does not have to rely on drug smuggling cartels to smuggle people or weapons into the United States. As recently revealed by the news media, after Islamic State troops were pushed out of the Iraqi city of Sinjar, Kurdish forces discovered that the Islamic State constructed 30 to 40 elaborate tunnels on its own.  The tunnels, some spanning over 200 meters, were wired with electricity, and contained sleeping quarters and weapons storage areas.  It is possible and credible that it could dig its own tunnels into the United States at the southern or northern borders.


  • The Islamic State is described as the richest terrorist organization on earth. It has a war chest estimated at over $2 billion dollars accrued from:  taxes, smuggling oil and antiquities, ransom for hostages, seized bank assets, donations from wealthy Gulf donors, the theft of all property and assets from the minorities it victimizes, and proceeds from zakat (tithing) and Muslim charities.
  • On November 19, 2015, media reports revealed that the US Government recently discovered that it miscalculated the income the Islamic State makes from oil. Originally, the government estimated that it made only $100 million a year, but now realizes that it makes $500 million a year from its oil smuggling operation.


  • Over the past year in numerous videos and statements, the Islamic State has specifically expressed its intent and desire to attack the American homeland, including a video presentation promising another 9/11-type spectacular attack.
  • The Islamic State has tens of thousands of experienced and blooded foreign fighters in its ranks, many thousands of which come from Western Europe and require no visas to travel to the United States. This number also includes at least 250 American citizens, but this number is augmented by the 900 American citizens, spanning all 50 states, that the FBI is currently investigating as supporters and/or operatives of the Islamic State.  It is likely that from among these thousands of operatives and supporters, the Islamic State could, at the very least, create and dispatch a 10 to 20 man team to the United States.
  • The Islamic State demonstrated its “…strategic and tactical military prowess” when it launched three sophisticated terrorist operations in less than two weeks.  By attacking Egypt, Lebanon, and France it demonstrated conclusively that it has the strategic intent and capability to launch operational teams to conduct terrorist operations outside of its immediate area of operation. All three of these attacks took Western intelligence agencies by surprise, establishing the fact that the Islamic State can smuggle its teams and weapons into very secure areas undetected.  This is due to the operational security of the selected teams as well as the Islamic State’s use of very secure encrypted communications technology.
  • The Islamic State has a two-pronged approach to chemical weapons; it is developing its own chemical weapons program, and over a year ago it seized existing chemical weapons and radioactive compounds from Iraqi institutions.  Moreover, according to U.S. officials, it has already used chemical weapons on the battlefield on at least four separate occasions.  The commanding officer of the U.S. Southern Command revealed in Congressional testimony that terrorists could easily smuggle personnel and weapons of mass destruction into the United States via the existing smuggling routes controlled by drug smuggling organizations on the border between Mexico and the U.S.  Moreover, the Islamic State has the capability of unilaterally digging tunnels, as was discovered in the Iraqi city of Sinjar.
  • With a war chest exceeding $2 billion dollars, the Islamic State can easily create, train, and fully support a ten to twenty-man operational cell dispatched to the United States to conduct terrorist operations.
  • Despite the increasing number of American, Russian, and French airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria and Iraq, there is no evidence that indicates the Islamic State leadership seeks to avoid further military confrontation with any of these countries. Quite to the contrary, all evidence indicates that it is actively trying to provoke additional confrontations.  On November 24, 2015, the Islamic State released a new video that likely rates as the best piece of terrorist propaganda ever made; it throws down the gauntlet and tells the US and the international community to “bring it on!”


Based on the above facts and findings, as of November 27, 2015, the Islamic State has the desire, intent and all the capabilities required to launch an attack against the American homeland.  Within its ranks it has the expertise, trained operatives, financial resources, and possession of WMD to carry-out such an attack.  Absent specific actionable intelligence, there is no way to predict a specific date or location where attacks will occur.  It is likely, however, that the Islamic State has the capability to launch an attack, undetected, within the United States at a time and place of its choosing.

Brian Fairchild was a career officer in CIA’s Clandestine Service.  He has served in Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe, the Arabian Peninsula, and Afghanistan.  Mr. Fairchild writes periodic intelligence analyses on topics of strategic importance.