Boko Haram Re-Brands as Islamic State in West Africa

Nigerian special forces prepare to fight Boko Haram in Diffa, March 26, 2015. The country's army has reportedly severed Boko Haram’s access to arms suppliers, forcing the insurgents to resort to less sophisticated weaponry. REUTERS/Joe Penney

Nigerian special forces prepare to fight Boko Haram in Diffa, March 26, 2015. The country’s army has reportedly severed Boko Haram’s access to arms suppliers, forcing the insurgents to resort to less sophisticated weaponry. REUTERS/Joe Penney

CSP, by Nicholas Hanlon, April 23, 2015:

There is a lot of relatively good news on the progress of the Nigerian army in it’s efforts to defeat Boko Haram.  Here is where all of the nit-picking about the differences between IS and Boko Haram will mean even less.  Boko Haram was lionized for it’s ability to take and hold territory.  However, because of it’s primary driver as an internationally connected Islamist group that is ideologically driven, it will adapt to a new menu of tactics that resemble Al Shabaab.  This is where the relationship beetween IS and Boko Haram becomes significant.

The signal is the re-brand as Islamic State in West Africa.  Analysts were hard pressed to see the tactical advantages that the allegiance between IS and Boko Haram could afford the West African jihadist movement in Nigeria.  The counter terrorism battle space in Nigeria will mutate as former Boko Haram fighters disperse and attempt to blend back in to the population.  The question of whether al Shabaab will also pledge allegiance to IS will arise with more frequency in the coming months.

As Boko Haram (now Islamic State in West Africa) is forced to shift tactics, Boko Haram’s pledge to IS will pay off.  When al Shabaab held territory they resembled Boko Haram.  When they control territory they raise money like a state.  When they are defeated militarily they operate like a terror group.  The make up and the mission of these groups do not change.  They all want to hold territory.  That factor does change.  When it does, each jihadist group adapts.

Those #Muslims Say the Darndest Things

coexist-not

Published on Apr 19, 2015 by Eric Allen Bell

Liberty and Islam cannot coexist. Free Speech and Islam cannot coexist. Women’s Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Human Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Critical Thinking and Islam cannot coexist. Weapons of Mass Destruction and Islam cannot coexist. The future and Islam cannot coexist.

Understanding History’s 7 Stages of Jihad

7-stages-jihad

The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Dec. 8, 2014:

The post-9/11 debate on the meaning of “jihad” has often floundered at a superficial understanding of the term. Jihad is often simply referred to as either “striving” or “holy war.” Jihad, however, must be understood to consist of four varieties of human activity agreed upon by Islamic theologians and jurists. The first is the jihad of the heart, the so-called “greater jihad” of fighting evil within oneself. The second and third definitions involve the jihads of the mind and tongue, the condoning of “right” behavior in others and counseling those who have gone astray. Finally, there is jihad of the sword. Jihad of the sword is most relevant for the counterterrorism community today because it rests at the foundation of the global jihadist ideology.

The concept of jihad of the sword has been repeatedly reinterpreted and redefined since the days of the Prophet Muhammad. During this extensive time period, jihad by the sword has been used by protagonists to rally co-religionists in the pursuit of a political objective. Al-Qa`ida and the broader Salafi-jihadi movement have also reinterpreted this concept to justify the direct targeting of civilians in terrorist attacks.

To properly understand the historic significance of al-Qa’ida, it is relevant to review the contextual evolution of the concept of jihad and the great success al-Qa’ida has had in redefining it for the current conflict.

Since the days of the Prophet Muhammad, jihad by the sword has been shaped by seven, historically-shaped political conceptualizations of jihad, occurring in the following order:

  1. empire building;
  2. the suppression of apostate subjects;
  3. the revolution against “false” Muslim leaders;
  4. the anti-colonial struggle and “purification” of the religion;
  5. countering Western influence and jahiliyya;[1]
  6. guerrilla warfare against secular invaders; and finally
  7. the direct targeting of civilians in terrorist attacks.

This article will identify each contextual interpretation and the significance of jihad as terrorism.

SEVEN SWORDS OF JIHAD

Each of the contextualizations of jihad of the sword has been dictated by the desire to have jihad fill a real, specific and political need for Muslims in a given age and facing a specific threat. When the Prophet Muhammad was building a completely new state, he used the concept of jihad to justify the expansion of Islam. Although the Qur’an does not use the term jihad to refer directly to empire-building in the military sense, sura 25 verse 52 stipulates “obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost endeavor.” Understood in the context of Muhammad’s return to Mecca from Medina, and the ensuing conflict with the Meccans that is reflected in the latter half of an earlier sura, it is clear that striving is in this instance connected to military combat post hijra,[2] as Muhammad returns to Mecca and enforces his new writ. This constitutes the first offensive use of the concept, referring to the conflict to establish order among the Arab tribes around Mecca, through the use of force if necessary.

When Muhammad’s successor, Abu Bakr, faced recalcitrant tribes on the Arabian Peninsula that were threatening the order Muhammad had previously established, the second meaning of jihad was born: ridda, or the war against apostasy, against one’s own subjects. In the Western world, this would be equivalent to a war against rebels.

The third contextual definition of jihad came centuries later after the eclipse of the Abbasid Caliphate’s strength, starting in the second half of the 13th century. It is this reworking of the meaning of holy war, most significantly by Ibn Taymiyya, that has the greatest consequence for today’s context. The motivation for this redefinition was the need to provide Muslims with the right to revolt against their own leaders, specifically the Mongols. Islam had previously prohibited revolution against Muslim rulers. Ibn Taymiyya’s answer was to remove the prohibition; he argued that jihad is permissible against one’s own leaders if they do not live as true Muslims and if their rule does not conform to the requirements of Shari`a. He said,

And it is known by necessity from the din (religion) of the Muslims, and the agreement of all the Muslims, that whoever permits the following of a din other than Islam or following a Shari`a other than the Shari`a of Muhammad then he is a kafir (unbeliever), and it is like the kufr (blasphemy) of one who believes in part of the Book and disbelieves in part of the Book.[3]

Since the fusion of Mongol, Turkic and Tartar power was occurring at the same time that Ibn Taymiyya was writing, he was specific about the threat to “pure” Islam and how Muslims must respond:

Fighting the Tartars, those who came to the land of Shaam is wajib (religious duty) according to the Book and the Sunna, for indeed Allah said in the Qur’an: And fight them until fitna (schism/ blasphemous upheaval) is no more, and the din becomes all for Allah.[4]

Therefore, in the Middle Ages jihad became legitimate revolution based upon a new mechanism by which the people could denounce their leaders as un-Islamic.

The fourth political reconceptualization of jihad occurred four centuries later, starting in the early 1700s. As the European powers pushed militarily and politically into North Africa, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, the threat to Islamic societies was two-fold. Empires such as the British had to be physically resisted. At the same time, the West’s cultural influence upon the purity of the Islamic faith was growing and had to be countered. During this period, jihad was defined as anti-colonial resistance.

This new interpretation of jihad was typified by the pronouncements of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabi Islam. Its practical and military consequences were amply demonstrated during the decade-long resistance to the 1830 French invasion of Algeria led by `Abd al-Qadir and also by the Sudanese resistance to the British led by the self-proclaimed mahdi, Muhammad Ahmad. The second, non-military element of this redefinition of jihad—what author Noor Mohammad has described as Islam’s internal “housecleaning”—was represented by Shah Waliullah’s call to spiritual revival and the purification of India’s Muslims under British control.[5]

This definition of jihad would lead directly to the next interpretation, one that relies heavily on the principles laid down hundreds of years prior by Ibn Taymiyya, including the doctrine of takfir (excommunication). This fifth version of jihad was fathered and later developed by Abu al-A`la Mawdudi in India (then later Pakistan) and Sayyid Qutb in Egypt. This time the threat was embodied by the post-WWII Arab leaders of the Middle East and the influence of Western “soft power,” which together equaled a new jahiliyya, or age of polytheism and ignorance. Apostate leaders were to be resisted once more (and removed if possible), Islam purified and Shari`a re-imposed.

HOLY WAR AS AN INTERNATIONAL BRAND

With the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979, jihad would no longer be limited to resistance against the cultural and political influence of the secular West or un-Islamic Arab rulers. Although it is true that within Afghanistan, among the Afghans, the motivation to resist Soviet domination did not have to be couched in terms of theology but simply in terms of survival and sovereignty, to the Arab mujahidin recruited by the Palestinian Abdullah Azzam, jihad was a crucial concept, a brand Azzam assiduously built in his travels around the world. Most importantly, Azzam built his jihadist brand in a way that negated earlier requirements for holy war to be declared by a legitimate authority, as he redefined military resistance as an individual duty.

In his introduction to “Defense of Muslim Lands,” he plainly stated that

…if a piece of Muslim land the size of a hand-span is infringed upon, then jihad becomes fard `ayn (a personal obligation) on every Muslim male and female, where the child shall march forward without the permission of its parents and the wife without the permission of the husband.

Azzam invoked Ibn Taymiyya by name to justify his version of self-declared jihad and then warned his audiences of the price they would pay if they did not follow the path of military resistance. Quoting from the Qur’an, sura 9 verse 39: “If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you with another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is able to do all things.”[6] By the late 1980s, Azzam’s rebranding of Muslim holy war in a new political and geostrategic context was so successful that even in the West jihad would become synonymous with guerrilla resistance to communist invasion and dictatorship.

Only after the eventual defeat of the Soviets, the end of the Cold War and the outbreak of the first Gulf War would the seventh and most important redefining of jihad of the sword be born. With Azzam’s death in 1989, his organization of Arab guerrillas, the Mujahidin Services Bureau (MAK), was taken over by his deputy Usama bin Ladin. Rejected by his own government when he offered to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq with his Arab fighters, Bin Ladin would change the mission and name of his organization. The “godless” Russians had been defeated, the bipolar world order replaced by the hegemony of a victorious United States, a country that had been invited to bring its troops and influence into the Arabian Peninsula to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq. Guerrilla warfare within Saudi Arabia against the apostate House of Saud and against U.S. targets was impractical, if not impossible.

Several influential figures who had followed the teachings of the original Muslim Brotherhood and its leader Hassan al-Banna, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, had, after the severe crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, joined the MAK. Bin Ladin’s Wahhabi understanding of jihad would be suffused with the ideology of the Egyptian Qutbists. What resulted was al-Qa`ida and a new indirect approach to violent jihad. Subsequently, the meaning of jihad was expanded for a seventh time since Muhammad built his empire in the seventh century. The fight would be focused less on irregular warfare in countries where Muslims were suffering and more on the “far enemy,” which they identified as supporters of tyrannical regimes in the Muslim world. With the East Africa embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack and then finally the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, Bin Ladin successfully defined jihad as willful targeting of civilians by a non-state actor through unconventional means. The seventh political definition of jihad, therefore, is terrorism.

CONCLUSION

It is crucial for analysts and strategic planners to fully understand this mutation and evolution of the concept of jihad over time. It is incorrect to see jihad solely as a religious concept referring to the striving of the individual to be pure, because jihad of the sword is referenced in the hadith in multiple instances. It is clear that the meaning of violent jihad has been shaped during the centuries to fit the needs of those espousing holy war and calling their co-religionists to the battlefield. Usama bin Ladin’s great historical significance is that he managed to turn jihad from referring to guerrilla resistance against military oppression of the 1980s to mean the killing of mass numbers of civilians on the soil of non-Muslim lands. Understanding this contextual evolution is critical in the effort to find strategies to weaken al-Qa`ida’s ideology.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka teaches irregular warfare and counterterrorism at the College of International Security Affairs of the National Defense University, Washington D.C. He is an Associate Fellow of the Joint Special Operations University (USSOCOM) whose first degree was in Philosophy and Theology. Most recently, he co-authored, with David Kilcullen, “Who’s Winning the Battle for Narrative: Al-Qaida versus the United States and its Allies,” in Influence Warfare (Praeger 2009). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense or any other government agency.

[1] Jahiliyya refers to the age of polytheism and “unbelief” that existed before the Prophet Muhammad.[2] The hijra refers to the migration of the Prophet Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina.[3] Ibn Taymiyya, “Rulings of Fighting the Mongols,” fatawa, 28/524.[4] Ibid.; See also Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Shaykh al-Imam: Al-Siyasah al-Shariyah fi Islah al Raiwa Rajyah (Cairo: Dar al-Shab, 1976).[5] Noor Mohammad, “The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction,” Journal of Law and Religion 3:2 (1985): p. 396.[6] This is otherwise known as part of the Sura at Taubah (Repentence).

(Originally published 3 October 2009 in the CTC Sentinel, Combating Terrorism Center, West Point)

Dr. Walid Phares: Jihad in Europe — Implications for European and American Security

 

Published on Feb 9, 2015 by securefreedom

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Thursday, February 5, 2015.

Sharia Adherent Muslims Are Not “Extremists”

cropped-cf404835c7c93f19d7efce5545012ae5_2e08UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 9, 2015:

The U.S. government continues to label the Islamic terrorists we face as “violent extremists” who commit acts of “workplace violence.”  Here at UTT we prefer to live in reality because it is the only place our enemies can be defeated.

The phrase “violent extremism” is a non-sensical term which means nothing, and was brought to the U.S. via the FBI and DHS who were convinced by our British counterparts it identifies those who are willing to support their beliefs with violence.  In this light, U.S. military forces and any American willing to defend a just cause can be classified as a “violent extremist.”

Unfortunately, those participating in the global Islamic jihad do not call themselves “extremists.” They call themselves “Jihadis” seeking to impose jihad on the world until the entire world is under Sharia (Islamic Law).  American war fighting doctrine states we begin our analysis of any enemy by how that enemy describes itself.

This enemy specifically states they seek to impose Sharia and it is the blueprint for everything it does.  Jihad is total warfare.  It is Civilization Jihad per the Muslim Brotherhood’s own strategic plan for North America, and the MB’s global strategy.  Jihad is warfare that comes at a society in a hundred different ways:  political, economic, psychological, spiritual, cultural, societal, and includes violence in the community and on the battlefield.

Sharia is the filter through which this enemy communicates and understands the world.  This is why it is crucial that we also use Sharia when we hear our adversaries speak so we can properly understand what the enemy intends.  “Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without right.  “Human Rights” is the imposition of Sharia (per the Cairo Declaration, a formal document served to the UN by the entire Muslim world via the OIC in 1993).  Extremism is when a Muslim exceeds his ability or authority.

Nowhere in the Muslim world do Islamic jihadi organizations call themselves “extremists” – they call themselves “Jihadis.”

At the Muslim Peace Conference in Oslo, Norway in 2013, we see the Muslim Community openly agreeing that the punishments of the Sharia are broadly supported.  Fahad Qureshi, the founder of IslamNet, asked the crowd a series of questions.  The answers from the entire Muslim audience put this issue right in our face.  They specifically state they are in full support of the Sharia, its punishment, and its importance to the Muslim community.

 

It is arrogant and condescending to believe Muslims do not believe the very thing they say they subscribe to – the very things Islam teaches.

They are not “extremists” – they are jihadis.

***

Also see:

A Few Words on “Radical,” “Extremist,” Ideology and Doctrine

TerrorTrends Bulletin, By Christopher Holton, Feb, 3, 2015:

Over the past few months we have heard increasing calls for the Obama administration to “call the enemy what it is” or “identify the enemy by name.”

It is true that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t identify.

These calls are invariably followed up by naming the enemy. Only the names assigned to our enemies seem to always be wrong. A few of the wrong names:

• Radical Islam

• Islamic extremism

• Radical Islamic extremism

• Islamist extremism

• Radical Islamist extremism

The problem with all these names is that they are names that we in the West have made up to describe our enemies. They don’t use any of them. No member of the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Lashkar e Taiba, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab or Abu Sayyef ever refers to himself as “radical” or “extremist.” No where in their communications will you see the modifiers “radical” or “extremist.”

They don’t subscribe to radical Islam or Islamist extremism.

In fact they claim that the basis for what they do is simply Islam. Every Jihadist organization bases its actions on Islamic scripture. Maybe they got it wrong, but seeing as THEY think that have it right, we best understand THEIR version of Islam if we are truly going to understand our enemies.

According to their own words, they are all Islamic Jihadis. That’s what they are and it’s what they call themselves.

We didn’t make up names for the Nazis in World War II. There were no “radical Nazis,” or “Nazi extremists.” There were only Nazis.

Today we have Islamic Jihadis.

And Islamic Jihad has a doctrinal basis in Islam. Which brings me to the next section of this posting.

Ideology or Doctrine?

I am hearing references to “radical” Islamic ideology on the news more and more. I try to avoid the term ideology. Jihad is based on doctrine, not on ideology and Jihad is what we’re confronted with. There IS a difference between doctrine, ideology and theology.

Doctrine is TAUGHT. For instance, Biblical doctrine is defined as those things that are taught from the Holy Bible. Islamic Doctrine is based on the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah.

6183g0glbllIdeology and theology, on the other hand, are man-made disciplines, fields of study. Many people do not see the difference between doctrine and ideology/theology. However, there is a substantial difference in how the two are developed in a practical way and it is important that we make the distinction.

Islamic doctrine is the teaching that comes directly out of the word of allah and is founded on the very words believed by Moslems to be spoken by allah and the life of the prophet Muhammed. To teach doctrine is to begin with full faith in the words of the Quran, the life of Muhammed in the Hadith and Sirah to dig out all that Islam says about a subject, and to organize that material in the way that best agrees with the approach that allah himself makes on the subject.

Ideology, by its nature, puts greater emphasis on systems built by man. In the Islamic context, ideology tends to begin with a man-made system and then goes to Islamic scripture for support, while doctrine begins with the scripture.

This is important because ideology can be explained away as man-made perversions of Islam, whereas, doctrine by its very definition cannot be disowned…

Islamic doctrine is embedded into Muslims from the time they can talk and read.

Jihad is an integral part of Islamic Doctrine. It is not part of some ideology that someone ginned up. It’s been there right from the start.

Make no mistake, Jihad is what is being waged against us, not “terrorism.” And our enemies are Jihadis not terrorists. This is not a war on terrorism. It is a defensive war against Jihad.

Muslim Brotherhood: Prepare for Jihad

1122by IPT News  •  Jan 30, 2015

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, hailed as a moderate voice andwelcomed by officials in the Obama administration just this week, issued separate statements on its English and Arabic websites this week that appear to contradict each other.

A call for “a long, unrelenting Jihad” appeared on the Brotherhood’s Arabic language website Tuesday. The statement, first reported Friday by the Washington Free Beacon‘s Adam Kredo, starts by invoking a passage from the Quran: “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of God and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know but whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of God will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.”

On its English language website Friday, the Brotherhood struck a dramatically different tone in an article in which it “Reiterates Commitment to Non-Violence.”

“The Brotherhood should not have to – every day – reiterate its constants, its strategic stance and chosen path of civil peaceful struggle to restore legitimacy…,” it said.

It does when it posts a call to prepare for jihad invoking assembling the “steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of God.”

The English posting says Brothers who stray from non-violence “no longer belong in the Brotherhood, and the group no longer accepts them, no matter what they do or say.”

As the IPT has shown, offering mixed messages in Arabic and English is routine for the Brotherhood.

On Thursday, a speaker on a Brotherhood-affiliated television station warned foreign tourists and business interests to leave Egypt next month, or risk becoming a “target for the revolutionary punishment movements.” A similar statement was posted on Facebook.

The dueling statements come just after the four-year anniversary of the Arab Spring uprising that toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak and led to the Brotherhood’s rise to dominate Egyptian government in his wake. But that rule was short-lived, as President Mohamed Morsi was forced from office by Egypt’s army in July 2013, after millions took to the streets to protest the government’s performance.

This week, dozens of people were killed in protests marking the 2011 revolution. A delegation of exiled Brotherhood officials visited Washington this week, urging support to return Morsi to power.

It was in that context that the Arabic call for jihad was published. According to the Free Beacon, it invoked Brotherhood founding ideologue Hasan al-Banna, who “prepared the jihad brigades that he sent to Palestine to kill the Zionist usurpers…”

“For everyone must be aware that we are in the process of a new phase,” the statement concludes, “in which we summon what of our power is latent within us, and we call to mind the meaning of Jihad, and prepare ourselves and our children, wives and daughters, and whoever marches on our path for a long, unrelenting Jihad. We ask in it the abodes of the martyrs.”

****

The Last Refuge:

As Predicted – Muslim Brotherhood Calls For Open Jihad Against President Fattah al-Sisi In Egypt….

Why do they hate al-Sisi so much?

◾Disbanded the Muslim Brotherhood as a political terror entity. (link) (link)
◾Arrested those who burned churches and attacked Coptic Christians. (link) (link)
◾Jailed or banished the extremist forces. (link)
◾Supported Israel’s right to exist and defend it’s borders. (link) (link)
◾Defeated Hamas in the border region. (link) (link)
◾Destroyed the border terror tunnels used by Hamas (link) (link)
◾Pressured Hamas and the PA to negotiate the ceasefire, and forced the PA and Hamas to assemble ONE negotiating group for their interests. (link) (link)
◾Fought extremism in the Sinai region, and fought against ISIS infiltration.
◾Fought the Libyan new al-Qaeda network “Libyan Dawn”. (link)
◾Charged and prosecuted the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, who fled to Qatar. (link)

◾Followed the MB to Qatar and initiated sanctions against Qatar until they stopped financing and harboring terror. (link)
◾Formed a coalition against Qatar including the UAE and Saudi Arabia who withdrew their ambassadors and isolated Qatar in the region. (link) (link)
◾Won reelection with almost 70% of the vote. (link) (link ) (link)
◾Holds an 80%+ job approval rating among ALL Egyptians. (link)
◾Shut down Qatar financed Al Jazerra propaganda machine. (link)
◾Supported the framework for a new constitution which supports minority protections. (link)
◾Won a victory against Qatar as they finally conceded and stopped safeguarding terrorists. Sending the MB leadership to the new safe harbor of Turkey. (link)
◾United the moderate (non violent) Arab coalition, the Gulf Security Council, and constructed a unity principle that supports the safety of Jordan and formed a coalition to defend if needed. (link)
◾Faced down and quietly defeated Turkey’s bid for a security council seat in the United Nations. (link) (link)
◾Negotiated a safe passage coalition for Israel and Greece to form an energy based economic trade agreement.
◾Continues to fight the Islamist extremists inside Libya. (link) (link)
◾Continues to fight ISIS in the Northern Sinai region. (link) (link) (link)
◾Expanded the border safety zone with Gaza to insure greater control and protection from weapons smuggling. (link)

Is Violence a Core Teaching in Islam?

jihad-300x180UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 20, 2015:

If the recent events of the past 14 years have not brought clarity to understanding that the core teachings of Islam is the sole reason the West is facing the warfare we are from so many different directions, then you may be incapable of reasonable and rational thought.

Since two Muslims killed a dozen people at the media outlet Charlie Hebdo in France, Muslims all over the world are holding massive protests…for the victims?  No.  They are protesting their “outrage” over the cartoons.  In a sane society, a group of identifiable people who barbarically brutalize decent society would not be able to globally complain about how cartoons effect their feelings.  But they are not ignored for the exact opposite reason  intellectually dishonest leaders in Europe and America tell us we should embrace, appease, and empathize with the Islamic world.

They threaten us violence while our leaders tell us to embrace the Muslim community because, as they say, “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Truer words have never been spoken, if you understand that “Peace” in Islam (per Sharia/Islamic Law) occurs when the entire globe is under the rule of Islam and Islamic Law.

As massive crowds of Muslims across the globe call for more violence and killings (read “justice” for those who “slander” the prophet), our leaders tell us we should stop offending the Muslim by publishing cartoons or speaking truth about Islam.  Color me reactionary, but I find sawing the heads off of 5 year old children and putting them on spikes for all the world to see just a bit more offensive.  Yet I do not see any massive demonstrations around the world against that or for the children who are victims.

It is time for rational and reasonable people to stop giving quarter to those who are psychotically disconnected from reality – i.e. those who believe Islam “doesn’t stand for this (violence).”

* Nearly every Islamic School on the planet, beginning in the first grade, teaches Jihad is a permanent obligation on the Islamic community until the world is under Islamic rule (under Sharia).

* Islamic legal scholars are (and always have been) unanimous in their understanding on the definition of “jihad”; the obligation of jihad; the requirement to establish a global Islamic state (Caliphate) under Sharia (Islamic Law); and that Muslims may never take Jews or Christians as their friends.  There is no such thing as a “version” of Islam that teaches something other than that.

* Sharia mandates jihad when the Islamic community has the strength and material ability to wage it.  Historically, over the last 1400 years, the Muslim community has waged jihad when they had the strength to do so.  In Islam, Mohammed is the “insan al kamil” or the “perfect man.”  Mohammed commanded Muslims to “fight and slay the unbelievers” until they (1) convert to Islam, (2) submit to Islam, pay the jizya (non-Muslim poll tax), and “feel themselves subdued,” or (3) be killed.  Mohammed waged war on the non-Muslims until they submitted, converted or were killed.

* All published Sharia (Islamic Law) defines “slander” as those who say anything about the prophet or Islam “which a Muslim would dislike.”  This is a capital crime in Islam.  The truth of the comment is not a part of the discussion in Islamic Law – only that a Muslim “dislikes” it.

The jihadis who took innocent lives in France at Charlie Hebdo, did so in accordance with, not against, Islamic Law.

100% of the Islamic jihadis we face on the battlefield, have committed acts of jihad in Europe or America, or those jihadis we have arrested before they did what they were trying to do all say words to the effect of: “We are jihadis fighting jihad in the cause of Allah in order to impose Sharia and establish the Islamic State.”

All Islamic doctrine backs this statement up – unequivocally.

The jihadis – or “terrorists” – are in complete agreement as to why they are doing what they are doing across the globe.  All Islamic jurisprudence supports them and never hasn’t supported them.  We are witnessing millions of Muslims protest over cartoons but not over the victims at Charlie Hebdo or Fort Hood or London or Madrid or Mumbai or Boston or anywhere else in the world.

To make this as clear as possible, Al Qaeda has never misquoted Islamic Law in furtherance of what they are doing.  Never.

If you had a dinner guest who didn’t follow your rules, was rude and inappropriate with your wife and daughter, and threatened you while eating a dinner you prepared in your house, you would ask him to leave.

The West may want to consider this option for a Muslim population which continues to threaten our lives in bolder and bolder fashion, while demonstrating absolutely no respect for human life, decency, liberty, or reasoned thought.

Raid on Belgian terror cell confirms threat

verviersWND, by Aaron Klein, Jan. 15, 2015:

Two people were killed in a raid on suspected Islamic radicals Thursday in the Belgian town of Verviers, according to local media.

The raid comes three days after WND exclusively reported there are at least 20 sleeper cells with a combined total of 120 to 180 jihadists ready to act in France, Germany and Belgium.

WND further reported two days later that intelligence information collected by European and Arab countries indicates there is a specific threat against Belgium.

Local officials Thursday said two people have been killed in an anti-terror operation in eastern Belgium.

The BBC is quoting a Belgian TV station saying a third person was wounded in the raid in the town of Verviers and that several arrests were made.

The Agence-France Presse news agency quoted a source in the mayor’s office stating “an operation is under way.” Another official said the raid was “jihadist-related.”

According to unconfirmed reports, raids were taking place elsewhere in Belgium.

As WND reported, chatter within jihadist groups combined with intelligence information collected by European and Arab countries indicates the next major terrorist attack may target the Netherlands or Belgium, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND.

The security officials said a joint effort between European and Arab security services has resulted in the drafting of a list of hundreds of names of potential jihadists, mostly European residents, who could be a part of a series of sleeper cells in Europe. There is an effort to track down the locations of the suspects.

The officials said the list also includes more than 100 suspects who are originally from Chechnya as well as foreign suspects from Palestinian camps in Syria and Lebanon, some of whom may currently be in Europe.

On Tuesday, WND reported Algeria’s intelligence services passed information to several European countries indicating there are at least 20 sleeper cells with a combined total of 120 to 180 jihadists ready to act in France, Germany and Belgium.

Many members of the cells were trained in Tunisia, according to an Algerian intelligence report that was shared with WND by a European official. The report was provided to European interior ministers.

The document also deals with the issue of European citizens traveling to Iraq and Syria to join Islamic terrorist organizations. The Algerian report fingers Saudi-financed mosques in Europe as helping to lead the recruitment of European jihadists to fight in Syria and Iraq.

The Algerians identified by name more than 100 clerics in Western Europe as leaders of the recruitment campaign, which the Algerian report says is coordinated with Salafists mostly located in Tunisia, Yemen and Libya.

Earlier this week, French law enforcement officers were directed to carry their weapons at all times “because terror sleeper cells have been activated over the last 24 hours in the country,” according to a French police source who attended a briefing Saturday and spoke to CNN terror analyst Samuel Laurent.

Amedy Coulibaly, the terrorist suspect killed last Friday after holding citizens hostage in a kosher market in Paris, made phone calls about targeting police officers in France, the source told CNN.

Hostages inside the market also reported hearing Coulibaly speaking on the phone about the targeting of police officers in France.

According to reports, the hostages said Coulibaly told them “militants are going to come – there are going to be more and more.”

According to reports, the hostages said Coulibaly told them that “militants are going to come.”

“There are going to be more and more.”

***

Published on Jan 15, 2015 by AlohaSnackbar01

BRUSSELS—Belgian security forces killed two terror suspects with links to Syria in a fierce shootout in the eastern city of Verviers on Thursday and arrested another, foiling a major and imminent attack against police buildings, authorities said.

“Like One Body”: Putting Aside Differences to Wage Jihad

ummahCSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 12, 2015:

Counter-terrorism experts appear to find themselves befuddled yet again by revelations that while the Kouachi brothers, who massacred twelve at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo Magazine declared themselves operating on behalf of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and reportedly trained in Yemen for the attack, their apparent partner in jihad, Ahmed Coulibaly issued a video statement recorded some time before the attack, declaring responsibility for the Islamic State (ISIS) and pledging allegiance (bayat) to it’s leader AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi. His common-law wife Hayat Boumeddiene , believed by French intelligence to have played a role in the attack, has apparently fled to Turkey, before making a beeline for the Syrian border, and the would-be Caliphate’s territory.

The Islamic State and Al Qaeda have been at odds with each other since AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi declaration of authority over Al Qaeda activities in both Iraq as well as Syria was rebuffed by AQ leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

How is it that these two groups, who are in dispute with one another, manage to work together to carry out a coordinated attack? Firstly, of course, the Kouachi brothers and Ahmed Coulibaly knew each other personally, and had history together, including the older Kouachi spending time in prison with Coulibaly. Obviously this would play a role. But secondly, and importantly, Jihad doctrine emphasizes cooperation, rather than competition, and the goal, of fighting in the cause of Allah (Jihad Fisabillah), as a religious obligation, is viewed as above inter-group rivalries. See for example, Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif (aka Sheikh Abul Qadir Abdul Aziz, a major Al Qaeda ideologue, who would eventually recant in Egyptian prison)’s essay, “Jihad and the effects of intention upon it”, taken from the larger jihadist work “al-‘Umda fi I’dad al-‘Udda (“The Essentials of Making Ready [for Jihad]”) which was taught in Al Qaeda training camps. In it Al-Sharif writes:

“And the Muslim should not train or perform Jihad with the aim of supporting as specific Jam’ah or party, so that if the jihad is with other than his group he abandons it. So this one is not fighting so that the word of Allah will be the highest, rather so that the banner of the party or the Jama’ah will be the highest, and thus is the asabiyyah of Jahiliyyah, about which the Messenger of Allah  said, “What is the matter with the call of Jahiliyyah. Abandon it, as it is rotten. And then he said, “whoever is killed beneath a blind banner, becoming angry for the group and fighting for the group, then he is not from my Ummah.”

This concept of fighting for the Ummah representing all Muslims everywhere, is a powerful driver of unity of action, and helps to explain how Islamist terror groups come together to cooperate, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable differences (such as Shia-Iran supporting aggressively anti-Shia Al Qaeda in Iraq, during the insurgency against the U.S.). It’s often illustrated by the hadith, “This Ummah is like one body, if one part is hurt then whole body suffers.”

For Shariah-adherent Muslims who insist on upholding classical interpretations of Islamic blasphemy, the publication of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons “defaming” Mohammed represented an injury to the entire Ummah. As a result the need to cooperate in order to avenge the insult could easily be placed above inter-group rivalries. This is not to say that studying in granular detail the individual personalities and group dynamics among various Jihad organizations is unnecessary or irrelevant.  Even jihadists are people and suffer from the same sorts of personal rivalries and disagreements that any organization does. However it is just as important to understand the ideological bonds the act as a force for cooperation, as it is to study disagreements if we wish to have strategic comprehension of those engaged in jihad.

Also see:

Expert: ISIS recruits not motivated by money

Money Jihad, Jan. 5, 2015:

Russia Today recently interviewed terror finance expert Loretta Napoleoni about the business operations of the Islamic State of Iraq. During the conversation, Napoleoni made some comments that seemed to suggest that ISIS is primarily driven by business imperatives rather than ideology—that governing territory and running a bureaucracy create its own financial demands that consume more and more of the organization’s time. Interviewer Sophie Shevardnadze sought clarification, asking if isn’t the case that ISIS fighters are motivated by their genuine Islamist beliefs rather than profit motives. Napoleoni gave a good and wise answer (transcribed below).  Roll tape:

 

I think the people that are joining this organization today, they are not joining because they want to make money—we’re not talking about mercenaries here, at all—we’re actually talking about people that are lured into joining, who are seducted. We’re talking about true seduction… All of the sudden the message comes from the Islamic State and says, “Come and help us build the new state, come and help us implement the Muslim political utopia,” something that for generations and generations, for centuries the Muslims have tried to establish and they have always failed. So these people are not motivated by money, they are actually motivated by an ideology. But in order to get to this level the Islamic State had to build itself and they did it through finance.

LEFTIST JIHADI DENIALISM GROWS IN WAKE OF NEW TERROR ATTACKS

sydney-siege-police-AFPBreitbart, by THOMAS ROSEDec. 18,  2014:

In reacting to Tuesday’s bloodcurdling terrorist murders of at least 132 school children by Taliban terrorists, once again President Obama could not bring himself to mention the Taliban perpetrators by name.
Rather than waking up to the mounting existential threat of Jihadist terror, much of what presents itself as leadership in today’s Western world seems to be falling ever deeper into denial. Terror plot after foiled terror plot; successful terror attack after successful terror attack; nothing seems to arrest or even slow the descent into cultural suicide.
Even before Monday’s deadly jihadist attack on patrons at a Sydney coffee shop was over, ‘polite’ Australian society raced to show solidarity not with the victims of the terrorist attack, but rather with the Muslim community from which the jihadist murderer came. By the time the standoff had ended, tens of thousands of Australians had embraced the #illridewithyou social media campaign. A prominent Australian academic received great accolades for characterizing the social media campaign as “a blue print for how we should deal with terrorism.”
On the very day of last October’s terrorist attack against Canada’s parliament, the head of the Toronto Police Service reached out to reassure not the leaders of any of the communities targeted by Islamist terrorists in Canada, but rather Canada’s Muslim community. “We as a service are aware,” the statement read, “ that your Mosques may be vulnerable to a backlash.” Justin Trudeau, the flamboyant leader of Canada’s left-wing Liberal Party, has made himself into a media and cultural darling by attending Islamic conferences conspicuously attired in Muslim garb.  proclaimed that the man who murdered the soldier guarding Canada’s fallen soldiers while shouting “Allah Akbar” was in fact not even a Muslim.
The practice of pretending not to notice things that scream for our attention— things like suicide bombings, the targeted murders of innocent school children, beheadings, honor killings, subjugation of women, and the transformation of community mosques into Jihadist command posts– has been practiced to the point of perfection. The time was long ago reached where free peoples find themselves facing the most basic of all social tests. Do we value our way of life to take steps–any steps– necessary to defend it, or don’t we?
Canadian columnist Mark Steyn has been warning for more than a decade that it is the unprecedented affluence and physical security experienced by Western society since the end of World War II itself that has generated the very conditions that will soon put us all to the ultimate test.
Our multicultural embrace has transformed Western society into a vacuous nullity that stands for nothing and believes in nothing except our own cultural and moral inferiority. When the values and symbols of Western culture are denuded of all meaning, as modern multiculturalism has done with remarkable success, is it any wonder that those looking for something positive to affirm look someplace other than Western civilization? Those who continue to maintain the pretense that all cultures are equally worthy of respect bear ever increasing guilt for legitimizing the medieval death cult that glorifies the murder of innocent Muslim children inside Muslim schools, enslaves women, beheads hostages, burns churches, crucifies Christians and murders all who oppose them. ‘War’ has been the word used throughout human history to describe the response against hostile forces plotting the destruction of one’s society.
 
Yet, we can’t bring ourselves to admit what our enemies can’t stop admitting. The terrorists can’t stop talking about the Islam that motivates while our leaders can’t stop pretending that there are no such admissions. While we circle the wagons to deny the Islam of our enemies, our enemies won’t shut up about their Islam. For them, Islam is not a religion in the Western sense. It is an all encompassing human experience. Wouldn’t it be easier if we acknowledged what they acknowledge?
Our enemies understand perfectly well why they are chopping off our heads. They know why they gun us down and send suicide bombers against us. They know that, unless we change, we will soon lose our freedom, our civilization and our world.
How is it that we refuse to identify our attackers when our attackers have no problem identifying themselves? Islamic State, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram— none of them hide their goals or objectives and go to great lengths to broadcast their claims of credit for their murderous exploits. As so often in the past, President Obama labelled the Canadian terrorist attacks “senseless violence”.
Islamist terrorism is many awful, depraved, and evil things, but one thing it is not is senseless. Jihadist-inspired attacks are direct assaults against the very essence of Western society. It is the ideology of Islamist Jihad that must be targeted directly. Therefore, they are anything but “senseless.”
Do we as free people cherish our freedom enough to protect it, or don’t we? Are we willing to defend and protect our own daughters from the decades of systemic rape, forced prostitution and unspeakable abuse suffered by at least 1,400 young white girls at the hands of Muslim gangs in Rotherham, England without anyone in any position of authority saying or doing a thing about it for fear of being labelled Islamophobic? Are we too more fearful of being labelled racists than we are committed to protecting our own daughters from violent sexual abuse?
When called upon to do, will we even be able to summon the base primal skills of survival that for so many generations our culture has been trying breed out of our species? Whether we continue to pretend not to notice what threatens us will determine whether we remain free Americans, Canadians, or Australians.
***
Also see:

Sydney Attacker: ‘Man of Peace’

People escape the Lindt Chocolate Cafe where Man Haron Monis (inset) was holding them hostage.

People escape the Lindt Chocolate Cafe where Man Haron Monis (inset) was holding them hostage.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The perpetrator of the jihadist, an Islamist known as Sheikh Man Haron Monis, was shockingly dropped from the country’s terrorist-watch list sometime after 2009. It is unknown why this happened but it may be attributable to the manipulative semantics he used to appear nonthreatening, utilizing a common Islamist strategy.

Haron pledged allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) last month, an act that should have immediately resulted in his placement on terror-watch lists and surveillance. Presumably, his website was not being monitored despite his lengthy criminal record, widely known extremism and history of 40 to 50 allegations of sexual indiscretions.

His “moderate” presentation is not nearly as slick as more skilled Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood, but the language he used can serve as a case study in how Islamists use crafty language to put audiences at ease.

***

Conclusion

It’s not enough to understand terrorist groups or the Islamist ideology behind them. We have to understand how it is expressed.

For Westerners, terms like “peace,” “terrorism” and “democracy” appear to have a universal meaning. We all understand each other when we use them. Islamists have different definitions of them. When they use these terms, many Westerners incorrectly assume the same concept is being discussed.

The nuances in Islamist language needs to be grasped so we can separate extremist from moderate and detect propaganda and word games.

Haron may have been dropped off Australia’s terrorist-watch list because of this deception or because of a tragic bureaucratic error. The broader lesson is that the West simply isn’t doing a good enough job of identifying threats.

Islamist adversaries are consistently overlooked, downplayed or even treated as partners. The intelligence and policy failures will continue until we understand the ideology we’re up against.

Read Mauro’s dissection of Haron’s writings and statements revealing the true meaning of his words

Also read about how Stealth jihadists use language deceptively from The Counter Jihad’s Debating Islam page. Learn the definitions of Islamic terms here: Islam’s Deceptive Use of Western Terminology

Call To Jihad: Terror Recruiting in Laguna and The Southern Philippines

A cartoon from the Editorial of the Philippine Star on ISIS threat in Philippines. http://directory.ucanews.com/news/isis-ideology-has-reached-southern-philippines-pime-missionary/1641

A cartoon from the Editorial of the Philippine Star on ISIS threat in Philippines.
http://directory.ucanews.com/news/isis-ideology-has-reached-southern-philippines-pime-missionary/1641

December 17, 2014 /

The Aquino administration and his most senior members in the Armed Forces of the Philippines(AFP) are trumpeting the UN report that came out a few days ago by saying, “we told you so.” We responded with an article titled “UN Claims No ISIS Presence in the Philippines – They’re Wrong,” where we laid out the ties between some of the most prominent Islamic State (IS) facilitators and the jihadist groups operating in the Philippines. In this follow up piece we’re going to kick things up a notch with an even deeper look into one of the support nodes we’ve mentioned: The Call and Guidance of Cabuyao Laguna (CGCL) and the individuals connected to it. Now, we can forgive AFP spokesman COL Restituto Padilla for not having all the facts since none of the organizations in the Philippine Security Forces (PSF) like to play nice with one another (sometimes to the point where people are killed due to holding onto information just because an organization can). However, the contents of this article are widely known to all of the senior officials of the Aquino administration. Keep this in the back of your mind as you read this piece. The following is from months of collaboration and research from our Asia Analytical Cell and network of sources in the Philippines – some of which are members of the PSF themselves.

UN Claims No ISIS Presence in The Philippines – They’re Wrong

President Aquino: The Barack Obama of Southeast Asia

ISIS Study Group claims terrorists’ presence in the Philippines
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/12/16/1403309/isis-study-group-claims-terrorists-presence-philippines

AFP spokesman Col. Restituto Padilla Jr.: UN reports proves our point. InterAksyon.com File

AFP spokesman Col. Restituto Padilla Jr.: UN reports proves our point. InterAksyon.com File

WE TOLD YOU SO | AFP says UN report of ‘No ISIS in PH’ boosts its claim ever since
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/101156/we-told-you-so–afp-says-un-report-of-no-isis-in-ph-boosts-its-claim-ever-since

Khalil Pareja Source: Rappler

Khalil Pareja
Source: Rappler

The CGCL was established in 2010 by Andrew “Mansur” Gutierrez and Brandon “Khalid” Gorospe. At the time Rajah Suleiman Movement (RSM) Ahmed Santos was 5 yrs removed from his arrest and subsequent move to SICA and Sheik Omar Lavilla had been detained in Bahrain while trying to wire money to his jihadist brethren and extradited to the Philippines 2 yrs prior. This was a period where

Pareja singing the praises of IS when it was still known as “al-Qaida in Iraq” – and before it was “cool” Source: Rappler

Pareja singing the praises of IS when it was still known as “al-Qaida in Iraq” – and before it was “cool”
Source: Rappler

many members of the RSM were laying low and contemplating their next move. The man who took over as the operational leader was Dino Amor Rosalejos Pareja aka “Khalil Pareja.” He reflagged RSM into “Jaysh at-Tauhid” (JTD) but in actuality this was still RSM with all the same personalities involved. Before he also found himself detained (again) in 2012, he had launched an initiative to establish alternative venues for bringing in financial and material support were established in anticipation of Lavilla and Santos’ eventual release from prison.

Mansur Gutierrez Source: The ISIS Study Group

Mansur Gutierrez
Source: The ISIS Study Group

The point man for this endeavor was Gutierrez, who served as the manager of Santos’ legal defense fund and would travel back and forth from Saudi Arabia under the status of an Overseas Foreign Worker (OFW) employed as an Operations Analyst for Advanced Electronics Company Limited. While in Saudi Arabia he collects money and will send it back to the Philippines via Western Union or through trusted associates rotating home. The individuals usually receiving the western union money are two of Santos’ wives, Fatima and Nurain. Our sources in the Philippine National Police – Intelligence Group (PNP-IG) reported to us their suspicions that Nurain is passing

Musa Cerantonio: Always had a soft spot for the Southern Philippines Source: One of his Twitter accounts

Musa Cerantonio: Always had a soft spot for the Southern Philippines
Source: One of his Twitter accounts

messages to Santos when she visits him in SICA. They also stated women typically aren’t searched and if they are its without the same level of scrutiny as a man would receive. This is likely how last summer’s prison video showing the inmates in Santos’ cellblock pledging allegiance to IS that was later promoted by Robert “Musa” Cerantonio (variant-Ceratonio). Nurain will also pass the money Gutierrez sent to other members of the network, even traveling to the Southern Philippines as she’s done on occasion. Gutierrez’s wife is also a key facilitator in the sense that she would often serve as a caretaker for Santos’ Fi Sabilillah Da’wah Media Foundation (FSDMF) when Fatima and Nurain were running errands or out of town on other business. She would also operate as a handler of money passing funds off from one individual to the next.

Gutierrez and Khalid Gorospe established the CGCL to better facilitate the flow of cash coming into the country from their Middle Eastern benefactors and began using the school for recruiting new members to replenish their ranks. Both Gutierrez and Gorospe would return to the Middle East to serve as OFWs tasked with collecting funds and targeting the OFW population for recruitment. How this works is they would identify the most vulnerable: young men who are alone. In this particular culture family is very important, and as an OFW you’re living thousands of miles away from your loved ones in an alien environment that is increasingly hostile to anyone who isn’t an Arab or Sunni Muslim for that matter. Individuals such as Gutierrez and Gorospe prey on these individuals by offering them the following:

1. RESPECT. This is very important due to how poorly Saudis are known to treat Filipinos – especially Christians.

2. A new, extend “family” of their Muslim brothers. This goes a long way towards feeling a new level of acceptance.

3. Promise of enhanced job prospects in the Middle East and when they return home to the Philippines. Gutierrez and Gorospe have used their links to major financiers and facilitators to get select Balik Reverts jobs.

4. A wife. Yes, there have been several cases where a Balik Revert will be matched up with a woman for marriage (this is how Khalil Pareja got married in case you were wondering).

The most promising recruits (after they’ve been indoctrinated into the militant ideology of the Black Flag movement that is) are identified while studying at one of the affiliated institutions – such as the CGCL – and sent to training camps in the Southern Philippines run by a joint-instructor cadre consisting of Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF), Khalifah Islamiyah Mindanao (KIM), Bangsamoro Justice Movement (BJM)/BIFF-SOG and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI).

Breakdown of the radicalization process
Source: The ISIS Study Group

Phillipines chart

One of his other tasks is to serve as the mouthpiece for the Santos Network to major terror financiers such as former Islamic Studies Call and Guidance (ISCAG) Director Sheik Hamoud Muhammad abd-al Aziz al-Lahim and Saleh Muhammad al-Sanaa. These connections play a big role in Gutierrez’s ability to secure jobs for new recruits. When he’s back in the Philippines, Gutierrez will often make his rounds by visiting ISCAG and the al-Marrif Educational Center (AMEC) to coordinate the distribution of funds to the CGCL and other affiliated schools in the country – all under the guise of “Islamic Dawah Activities.” This money is for proselytizing efforts, facilitating the travel of personnel to Syria and Iraq, even purchasing weapons and IED-making material for their jihadist colleagues in the Southern Philippines. These contacts will even send trusted associates representing their interests in the country to these institutions to pass along funds and guidance – Gutierrez reportedly plays an important role in making the arrangements for these meetings.

***

We decided to begin putting out more detailed pieces to drive home to the US government and good people of the Philippines that the IS presence in the country is very real, both the US and Aquino administration are both aware of it, but isn’t taking the threat seriously. The Filipino members of our network have expressed a genuine fear of the coming storm, and rightfully so. The Black Flag affiliates in the country aren’t just a threat to Filipino Christians and westerners, they’re also a threat to the average Filipino Muslim who oppose the ideology of death that Baghdadi and his followers practice. PNoy, his cabinet and the senior members of his security forces have been very much aware of everything we covered in this article for quite some time. The million dollar question is why haven’t the PNP conducted a security sweep to detain the key members of the Santos Network who are present in the country after the arrests of Ricardo Ayeras and Andy Valdez? We know this much, the PNP has been watching this network but don’t have the appetite to detain them despite the danger they pose to the civilian population. Unfortunately, they’re only going to be motivated to do something if the leadership is motivated to take action. It all starts at the top – starting with PNoy.

Much more at The ISIS Study Group