The Threat Doctrine that Cries ‘Blasphemy’

By Janet Levy:

For the past 25 years, the Muslim Brotherhood in North America has been pursuing a comprehensive strategy to control what non-Muslims know about Islam.  This multi-pronged threat doctrine seeks to prohibit open discussion and to abridge free speech.  It also seeks to curtail education and training given to the military, law enforcement, intelligence, and government about the true nature of Islam.  Overall, the Brotherhood’s agenda seeks to block a fair and critical appraisal of Islamic doctrine, pursue a stealth civilizational jihad against the West, and, ultimately, render us impotent to defend ourselves.

A review of the Brotherhood’s progress in this effort over the past two decades presents a chilling picture of the extent to which our safety and way of life have been compromised.  It serves as a wake-up call for action now.

Background

The General Strategic Plan for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, written and adopted in 1987, established the grand mission for Muslims as a mandatory civilizational jihad against the West, led and directed by the Brotherhood.  The stated goal was to establish Islam as “victorious over all other religions.”  Specific steps were laid out in the document to bring about a global Islamic state under sharia, or Islamic doctrine.

The Brotherhood’s strategic plan is buttressed by the Islamic doctrine of al wala wa al bara, which requires Muslims to feel enmity toward non-Muslims (upheld by taqiyya, or deception) and exhibit loyalty to the umma, or the Muslim community.  It embodies the stealth principles of Sun Tzu’s ancient Chinese war doctrine: “[s]ubduing an enemy without force is best” and “[a]ll warfare is based on deception.”

Stopping military and government training

To control what is known about Islam and to block education and training to law enforcement and government, the Muslim Brotherhood has developed well-placed inside-influence operators who wield considerable power with high-level officials and can set policy.

For example, in 2008, Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and top expert on Islamic doctrine, was cashiered as a government contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.  Coughlin had lectured at the Navy War College and the Marine Corp War College, as well as briefed members of Congress, senior staff at the Department of Defense, government officials, and law enforcement and intelligence officers.  His departure was an orchestrated campaign undertaken by an Egyptian-American Muslim, Hesham Islam, who, after 20 years in the U.S. Navy, had become a senior adviser and admired confidant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

Islam was welcomed into England’s inner circle despite his close ties to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas terrorist funding trial.  Islam regularly attended ISNA events and hosted the organization at the Pentagon.  From his position as a well-placed insider, Islam was able to use his relationship with the deputy secretary to label Coughlin “extreme” and “a Christian zealot with a poison pen,” even though the veracity and scholarship of Coughlin’s lectures were deemed impeccable throughout his chain of command.  Eventually, Islam succeeded in having Coughlin removed, effectively silencing him and removing the benefit of Coughlin’s expertise for military personnel.

A more recent instance of blocking military and government officials from learning the truth about Islamic doctrine was the removal from training responsibilities of Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley from the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA.  Although Dooley’s course materials on radical Islam had been previously approved, they were recast as “offensive to Muslims” and critical of Islam after complaints came to the White House from various Islamic influence groups.

The complaining groups included two unindicted co-conspirators in the Hamas funding trial — ISNA, again, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Dooley was publicly excoriated, fired as an instructor, and given a negative evaluation, placing the future of his military career in jeopardy.  Finally, all materials critical of Islam were scrubbed from military training, even though much of the training materials referenced Islamic texts themselves,  as well as commentary from highly esteemed Muslim clerics.

In this way, for lack of adequate training and education, our military officers and other government employees are ultimately rendered impotent to fight the enemy, unaware of the threat to national security posed by Islam.

Invoking “Islamophobia” and “Blasphemy”

Another key tactic cited in the Brotherhood’s strategic plan is to prevent infidels from learning the truth about Islam by controlling how Islamic doctrine is discussed and the language used to describe Islam and Muslims.  This method is effectively aided by the West’s culture of multiculturalism, in which charges of prejudice and racism — like “Islamophobia” — trump all offenses.

The all too convenient charge of “Islamophobia” has been proclaimed when non-Muslims have critically evaluated the tenets of Islam, denounced terrorist activities, called attention to inappropriate or threatening behavior, denied requests for accommodations beyond what is customary and normal, depicted Mohammed in unflattering ways, or even quoted directly from Islamic scriptures.  This dissembling or disingenuous focus on “Islamophobia,” when none exists in the U.S. (according to an FBI study on religious hate crimes), obfuscates the real danger of jihad and Islamic supremacism.  It lulls the general populace and renders it helpless to defend itself against the real Islamic threat.

A parallel move, used when actual Islamic terrorist actions have been taken, is to shift the blame for those actions onto non-Muslims.  Thus, those who have expressed negative views of Islam and Muslims and who have cast suspicions about Muslims’ activities are deemed culpable for Islamic terrorism.  Further, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA issue veiled threats that the targeting and misrepresentation of Muslims will lead to distrust within Muslim communities and foster an unwillingness to cooperate with authorities to strengthen homeland security.

A related diversionary tactic is to blame jihadist acts on social or economic problems such as poverty, lack of opportunity, and bias against Muslims.  In effect, the argument goes, Islamic terrorism is being manufactured by Islamophobia or poverty and has nothing to do with Islam.  The West is blamed for its insensitivity to Islam, and the need for formalized measures or legislation is advanced to ensure that infidels aren’t harmed further by violent reactions when Muslims legitimately feel disrespected.  Legislation such as the Istanbul Process, the collection of anti-blasphemy laws passed by the U.N., is presented as a necessary option under the guise of condemning insults to religion in general.  Yet the real intent is to eliminate any criticism of Islam, as is made obvious by the regular and public condemnation of Christians and Jews by Muslims who populate the internet with videos calling for jihad against infidels.

Advancing false theories

Another arrow in the quiver of Muslim tactics is to seize control of the education of military and government employees about Islamic doctrine.  Muslim Brotherhood organizations do this by arguing that non-Muslims are unequipped to teach Islam and that it must properly be taught by Muslims.  As a result, CAIR has provided Muslim sensitivity training for the FBI, U.S. Armed Forces, state and local law enforcement agencies, and others, all of it under the guise of fostering a “better relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim community.”  Yet at the same time, the Brotherhood’s New York chapter distributed posters declaring, “Build a Wall of Resistance, Don’t Talk to the F.B.I.” and advised Muslims that they are the victims of anti-Muslim bias.

Incredibly, Muslim Brotherhood operatives, such as Louay Safi, have even taught the tenets of Islam to American troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, including a course on the “Theology of Islam” at Fort Hood in Texas.  Following Major Nidal Hasan’s 2009 attack on Fort Hood in which he murdered 13 people, Safi blamed the violent outburst on the “demonization of marginalized groups,” meaning Muslims.

Another Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohammed Magid, president of ISNA, was appointed in 2011 by Obama to serve at the Department of Homeland Security.  His responsibilities have included the training and advising of personnel affiliated with the FBI and other government agencies.  Magid has characterized any criticism of Islam as “religious bigotry and hate” and been responsible for purging government-training materials critical of Islam.

Read more at American Thinker

5 thoughts on “The Threat Doctrine that Cries ‘Blasphemy’

  1. Ban Muslims from entering our military. Ban Islamic groups from our military training.
    This is akin to inviting the Nazis to teach us about Adolf Hitler’s “gentle, peace-loving” Germany during WWII.
    Cripes, if I had my way I would ban the practice of Islam in all western democracies, especially in the Americas. This may be our last chance, folks. If we don’t stop Islam here we will eventually succumb to it.

  2. Pingback: The Threat Doctrine that Cries ‘Blasphemy’ | Through the Eyes of a Calvinist

  3. Start redacting all of the anti-Semitic hate and bigotry from the Koran. It’s either that or a directive to remove it from government-funded use.

  4. Pingback: The Threat Doctrine that Cries ‘Blasphemy’ « swissdefenceleague

Comments are closed.