“Islam is the Religion of War”

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

UTT, by John Guandolo, May 18, 2015:

When the leader of the Islamic State, al Baghdadi, said “Islam is not the religion of peace, Islam is the religion of war,” he meant it.

Here are 6 reasons indicating al Baghdadi is correct:

1.  Islamic World is United in Teaching Jihad Must Be Waged Until Islam Rules the World

At Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt – the pre-eminent school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world and the oldest – they teach the purpose of Islam is to destroy the Dar al Harb (House of War) until the entire world is the Dar al Islam (House of Islam) and Sharia (Islamic Law) is the law of the land.  The vehicle to do this is called “Jihad” which is only defined in Sharia as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Islamic schools across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Central/South America, Mexico, Asia, and North America, first graders are taught that Islam must rule the world, and Christians and Jews are to be hated by Muslims.

All published Sharia mandates jihad until a Caliphate is created and Sharia is the “Law of the Land” across the globe.  All published Sharia only defines “jihad” as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

Note: It is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something that is incorrect about Islam.

2. Senior Islamic Scholars Call for Jihad Against Non-Muslims

The most prominent and well-educated Islamic scholars call for jihad and the implementation of Sharia, and many are even labeled as “terrorists” by the West.

Omar Abdel Rahman is arguably one of the most respected Islamic scholars alive on the planet today. As some of you may know, he is also known as the “Blind Sheikh,” and is in federal prison in the United States for his involvement with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other plots in New York and beyond. Yet today, Rahman is hailed as a great scholar and many are calling for his release from prison.  He is an Al Azhar trained/educated Islamic scholar.

Abdullah Azzam graduated with a degree in Sharia from Damascus University before being invited to attend Al Azhar University.  After he finished his studies, he was asked to teach at Al Azhar, putting him in a very small and elite group of Islamic scholars.  This is the man who, with Osama bin Laden, developed Al Qaeda and its beginnings.

Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi is one of the most widely respected and sought after Islamic scholars in the world today, and hosts the most popular show on Al Jazeera (“Sharia and Life”).  He is currently the President of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS) and leads the European Council for Fatwa and Research.  He has twice been offered the position of “Supreme Guide” of the International Muslim Brotherhood, and is the man who led the first Jummah prayers in Tahrir Square in Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew the Mubarak regime.  That was his first time back in Egypt in 30 years because he was banned from Egypt for his involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood’s assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.  Qaradawi is also the Islamic scholar who called for the killing of American civilians in Iraq.

3.  All “Terrorists” Get Their “Version” of Islam Wrong in the Exact Same Way

ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyef, Al Shabab, Hamas, Hizbollah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and all Islamic “terrorist” groups on the planet state they are doing what they are doing in order to establish the Caliphate (Global Islamic State) under Sharia law.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s By-Laws say they exist to impose “Allah’s law (sharia) in the land” and establish an “Islamic State.”

The Al Qaeda operatives who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993/USS Cole/US Embassies in Africa (1998)/etc, the 9/11 Hijackers, Major Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood), the “Underwear Bomber,” the Time Square Bomber, the “terrorists” who killed the British soldier in Woolwich (England), the Somalis from Al Shabab who killed citizens in the mall and university attacks (among others) in Kenya, the Muslim who sawed his colleague’s head off in Oklahoma, Terry Lee Lowen who attempted to bomb a plane in Kansas, the jihadis who were killed in Texas in April 2015 (Garland), and all of the other jihadis we and our allies have faced over the last 30 years have all done what they did because they were following the Sharia – and they all say so.

Isn’t it interesting they all say it is a command from Allah to wage jihad until the infidels submit to Allah’s law and an Islamic state is created?  Isn’t it interesting they use the same source materials to quote these commands – all of which have unquestioned authority in Islam?

They all get it wrong in exactly the same way.

4.  Former Muslims Confirm Islam Obliges Jihad and Strict Adherence to Sharia

Scores of men and women who have left Islam – under penalty of death – confirm Islam teaches exactly what Al Qaeda says it does – Jihad is an obligation until Islam rules the world.

Former Muslims United, interestingly, never gets much traction from American media, but their stories are powerful, and they openly discuss the truth about Islam.

Nonie Darwish, whose father was a Shaheed, says “Islam wants to rule the world.”  Former Muslim and Al Azhar scholar Mark Gabriel (alias) makes clear Al Azhar teaches Jihad is a permanent obligation until Islam rules the world under Sharia.   The Quran commands it, and the Prophet Mohammad taught and did it.

5.  The History of Islam is Consistent with Their Doctrine (Sharia)

Over the last 1400 years, when Islam had the material ability and strength to do so (per Sharia), it has waged Jihad on the non-Muslim world.  From the 7th century to today, this has been true.  Western Civilization has defended itself against the Islamic armies since the time Mohammad became a political and military leader in Medina in approximately 623 AD.

In the early 1920’s, the Ottoman Empire (Caliphate) was dissolved by Mustapha Kamal and the nation state of Turkey created. While most people in the West forgot or never knew this, the Muslim world has not forgotten.  Since the Islamic community began growing their wealth from oil money in the 1960’s and ’70’s, the world has watched the growth of the Islamic Jihad – because the Sharia demands it.

Our “ally” – Saudi Arabia – continues to fund the global jihad today.

6.  Where is the Other “Version” of Islam Taught?

The obvious question must be asked: Where is this other mystical and peaceful version of Islam and where is it taught? Can anyone name one authoritative text of Islamic jurisprudence from any country or century that teaches something other than the fact Islam exists to wage Jihad until the world is under the rule of Sharia?

The answer is – “NO.”

There is no authoritative Islamic text that teaches something different because there is no other “version” of Islam.  While you may find books that discuss other definitions of “jihad” and other “versions” of Islam at your local book store, those books are written for YOU, not the Muslim community.  If you want to read what Muslims are taught, you must go to Islamic/Mosque bookstores and read their stuff.

Why Islam Is More Dangerous Than Other Religions: Shariah, Jihad, and Muhammad

A woman holds a placard during a march and rally in east London, December 13, 2013. They were participating in a rally organized by British Islamist Anjem Choudary condemning use of alcohol and promoting Shariah law.

A woman holds a placard during a march and rally in east London, December 13, 2013. They were participating in a rally organized by British Islamist Anjem Choudary condemning use of alcohol and promoting Shariah law.

Christian Post, BY MIKE DOBBINS, May 14, 2015:

In the wake of the Muhammad cartoon contest attack, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, tens of thousands of Muslims worldwide flocking to join ISIS, and the chronic oppression of women and minorities in Islamic nations, millions of people are taking a second look at Islam. Journalists, politicians, Muslims, and the public are realizing that something is fundamentally different about the religion. With every Islamic inspired beheading, bombing, burning, crucifixion, hanging, kidnapping, raping, shooting, stabbing, beating, lashing, amputation, and stoning, the difference becomes clearer.

If nations are serious about addressing the root cause of Islamic violence and oppression, they must stop deceiving themselves about the cause. The world must acknowledge the features of Islam that make followers more susceptible to acts of terror and tyranny and put out to pasture the discredited excuses of Islamic apologists.

Just like it would be absurd to say all governments are the same and equally benign, it is the height of irrationality to believe religions are the same and don’t differ in their dangerous teachings. While nearly all religions can teach violence and oppression, each religious text and founder is distinct. What they emphasize means the difference between extreme non-violence, as is the case with fundamentalists in Jainism, or extreme violence, as is the case with fundamentalists in Islam.

If the mainstream media persists on shielding Islam from criticism in the name of political correctness and religious sensitivities, the cycle of Islamic violence will continue ad infinitum. Only when we show moderate Muslims that we care more about saving their lives, improving their well being, and protecting their human rights than we care about possibly offending them will we be able to take our first steps towards ending the violence.

Three key aspects of Islam make it different and more dangerous than other religions: Sharia, Jihad, and Muhammad. Please feel free to reference and share this with the many apologists who still remain ignorant or in denial.

1. Sharia: Islamic law, called Sharia, is the only religious law that is incompatible with democracy and human rights. Wherever Sharia is embraced by an Islamic nation, oppression of women, religious minorities, gays, atheists, and ex-Muslims follows. Cruel and unusual punishments are employed and fear is used to control the population.

In Sharia, if you’re a Muslim who commits apostasy and renounces Islam you will be killed. Women have unequal rights in divorce, inheritance, freedom of movement, freedom of dress, and freedom of employment. Sharia supports killing or punishing gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender people. Sharia enforces blasphemy laws by stating those who criticize Islam, including the Quran or Muhammad, should be killed or severely punished.

The inhumane treatment of people in Sharia is why the Supreme Court of Turkey, a fledgling Islamic democracy, has effectively banned Sharia. It is also why the European Court of Human Rights ruled Sharia “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.”

According to Pew Research Center, a 2013 poll of Muslims worldwide revealed the majority believe Sharia to be revealed by Allah and not created by man. Since Sharia is the law of God, no manmade law can supersede it. Ones allegiance is to Sharia, not secular laws.

As a legal code, Sharia blurs the line between faith and government, making the two indistinguishable. Consequently, religion becomes the rule of law and there is no separation of church and State. This diverges from Christianity that says render unto God what is God’s and Caesar what is Caesar’s and from Jewish law, Halakha, which says Jews should follow the laws of the land they live in.

While some Islamic nations only embrace the civil law aspects of Sharia, for many Sharia is fully implemented and encompasses the personal, cultural, social, political, economic, and legal aspects of life. Though Sharia can be understood differently by the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, it is often interpreted very strictly as it is in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brunei, and many others Islamic countries. It’s no coincidence that these countries have some of the most atrocious human rights records in the world.

The strongest evidence that Sharia makes Islam more oppressive than other religions is the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (CDHRI). 45 Islamic nations have signed the Cairo Declaration that proclaims a number of human rights only to renege on them if they contradict Islamic Sharia. It is a devious way to give the appearance of caring about human rights when in reality it guts the historic 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by declaring Sharia the only source for Muslim ‘human rights’.

To even call the CDHRI a declaration of ‘human rights’ is an affront to the principles of human rights. The Cairo Declaration is an attempt by the majority of Islamic nations to enshrine religious inequality and oppression for eternity and create an Orwellian parallel version of ‘human rights’ to compete with the UDHR. They believe it is a Muslims ‘human right’ to oppress and be oppressed, to carry out cruel and unusual punishments, and to treat women and non-Muslims as inferior.

The Cairo Declaration offers no protections for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or equal rights. For instance, Article 2, section D of the CDHRI states “Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Sharia-prescribed reason.”(Emphasis added) Endless ‘rights’ are no sooner given then they are taken away by declaring that Sharia supersedes all laws guaranteeing human rights.

In case there was any misunderstanding the signers of the declaration included Article 24 that states “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”
If any rights guaranteed in the Cairo Declaration contradict the Sharia, the Sharia always wins. If any of the rights of the Declaration are not found in the Sharia, then they are not ‘guaranteed.’ Islamic nations would have saved a lot of time had they simply called it the ‘Cairo Declaration of Sharia Over Human Rights’.

No other nations on earth have set up a parallel version of ‘human rights’ to undermine the UDHR in the name of religion. By doing so, Islamic countries have declared Islamic Sharia to be incompatible with human rights and Islam very different than other religions. I unequivocally agree with them.

2. Jihad: Islam is the only major religion to have violent resistance, or violent Jihad, embedded into its sacred scriptures and endorsed by the founder. While Jihad can mean to struggle to improve oneself, Jihad meaning ‘violent struggle’ is prevalent in the Quran, Hadith, Islamic history, and modern day Islam. One need only turn on the evening news to see Jihad in action.

No matter where you go in the world, no matter their economic or educational background, race, age, gender, profession, or country of origin you will find a minority of Muslims turning to violent jihad. No matter where you go in the world, no matter their economic or educational background, race, age, gender, profession, or country of origin you will never find any Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Mormon, or humanist followers committing violent Jihad. Violent Jihad is unique to Islam.

Since no other religion has the doctrine of Jihad, we should expect more Muslims to succumb to violence then followers of other faiths. That is exactly what is happening. What would truly be baffling and in need of an explanation is if Muslims weren’t turning to violent Jihad.

Here are but 3 of the many quotes in the Quran and Hadith supporting Jihad. If you read them in context as I suggest you do, it will only reinforce their support of violent jihad.

“Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Quran 9:029

“Our Prophet ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a syahid shall go to paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.” Sahih Bukhari 4:53:386

“A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.” Sahih Bukhari 4:52:50
Astonishingly, even with Islamic terrorists referring to these passages as their inspiration for Jihad and the Quran and Muhammad’s endorsement of Jihad, Islamic apologists still deny that Islam has anything to do with terrorism or that Islam is different than other religions. It’s like trying to talk to someone with their head buried in blood soaked sand.

While the majority of Muslims do not support Jihad, a sizeable minority does. According to a 2013 Pew Poll of Muslims worldwide, 13% support Al Qaeda’s Jihad. When you take into account that there are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, 13% comes to 208 million Muslims scattered around the globe supporting terrorism. There are 15 times more Muslim Al Qaeda supporters than the entire world Jewish population of 13.9 million.

The goal of Jihad is simple: to spread Islam until it conquers and rules the world and all non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule. Non-Muslims and Muslims deemed apostates would be killed, asked to convert, or forced to pay the Jizyah. They will then implement a version of oppressive Sharia law on the conquered lands.

Jihad will not stop next year, next decade, or next century unless there is a worldwide concerted effort to wipe the legitimacy of Jihad from Islamic doctrines.

3. Muhammad: The prophet Muhammad is the only founder of a major religion to also be a warrior and military leader. This crucial distinction between him and founders of other major religions should be significant for obvious reasons. From the beginning the sacred and profound of Islam were bound to be entangled with the violent and cruel.

Like other military leaders of his day, Muhammad committed many ruthless acts. Islamic biographers reveal that he warred with neighboring tribes, ordered assassinations, killed prisoners of war, exploited women and children, gave his blessing to violent religious Jihad, and made people slaves. Many Muslims are only taught Muhammad’s merciful deeds and still remain shockingly ignorant or in denial of his complete life history.

For Muslims who do know and accept his life story, it can be a strong motivation to cause violence. Islam teaches Muslims that Muhammad is the ultimate role model for and they are encouraged to follow in his footsteps. As the supposed last prophet chosen by God his behavior and character are revered as holy and he is an example to be emulated.

It should come as no surprise that Muhammad’s support for violent acts is a significant source and inspiration for violence committed in Islam’s name. Radical Muslims, including ISIS, are simply doing what their prophet encouraged them to do or did himself. By behaving like Muhammad, Jihadi’s believe their violent acts will bring them closer to God, closer to the prophet, and make them more worthy of entrance into paradise.

If Muhammad had preached non-violence, to love non-Muslims, or to live in peace, then we’d have tens of thousands of Muslims around the world acting like Jesus. Because Muhammad was the antithesis of Jesus, we have tens of thousands of Muslims acting like warriors. This makes Islam, and Muhammad, much more dangerous than other religions.

To live in peace, Muslims and non-Muslims must denounce the violent and hateful parts of Muhammad’s life. They must admit that Muhammad was flawed and that his violent actions and sayings were not holy and contradict the Islamic precepts of mercy and forgiveness.

Ultimately, all Muslims, Imams, Islamic Scholars and Universities, Islamic political leaders, Islamic culture, Western political leaders, and Western culture must renounce Sharia, Jihad, and the violent aspects of Muhammad’s life. The alternative is 1400 more years or murder, mayhem, and broken lives.

Jihadophobia

AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

Breitbart, by Daniel Akbari, May 15, 2015:

I’m stunned by how Americans panic when they are threatened with the label “Islamophobe.” They become terrified, their judgment gets clouded, their insight is crippled so that they cannot pause for a moment to ask themselves what Islamophobe means. For Americans, being called an Islamophobe is in the same category as being called homophobic, racist, or sexist. The term Islamophobia has successfully silenced many voices and created an atmosphere in which people deliberately self-censor.

But people should not surrender freedom of speech – the right that Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) said was the most important right of all – in response to propaganda. The goal of propaganda is to provoke an emotional response, but Americans deserve a strongly reasoned argument – a reason that makes sense – to give up their freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and even academia have created a culture of shallowness that stops Americans from thinking profoundly when it comes to controversial issues. In the culture of shallowness, people are unable to analyze things deeply, they just look superficially.

The term Islamophobia is the perfect example of this culture of shallowness at work. Breaking Islamophobia down into two separate words, Islam and phobia, enables us to cut through that culture of shallowness. Both Islam and phobia have simple meanings that are easy to understand if used separately. “Islam” is a religion, it is a set of ideas and rules derived from Islamic authoritative sources: the Koran, Hadith, and the consensus of Islamic scholars over the last 1400 years. “Phobia” is a fear that “is in no way justified by reality.” Since phobias are irrational they are considered a psychological disorder. On the basis of the offered definitions, the term Islamophobia means a fear of Islam that lacks a rational basis.

Islam, as a religion, has been subject to different interpretations. The interpretation that is consistent with the authoritative Islamic sources generates sharia and commands jihad. However, there is a broad spectrum of interpretations, some close to the true understanding of Islam and some considered heretical. Being afraid of the fundamental and traditional Islam from which sharia and jihad are spawned is not irrational. In this regard, calling somebody an Islamophobe is tantamount to calling them a Jihadophobe or Sharia-phobe. The fear of jihad and sharia, for those who know them, is a rational fear, it is not a phobia.

Numerous Koran verses explicitly command jihad. Some of the most famous are surah nine of the Koran 9:5,29,73 verse 5, the Verse of the Sword, verse 29, jihad against People of the Book, and verse 73 jihad against hypocrites and unbelievers. Sharia comes from surah 5: 44-48, among others, and tells Muslims they are unbelievers if they do not judge by what Allah has revealed. Sharia is simply the rules for how to practice Islam, formulated by scholars from the Koran and Hadith. For an explanation of the qualification of scholars and how they formulate sharia see Chapter 2 of my latest book, Honor Killing.

The propaganda machine that tars people with the label Islamophobe never dares to discuss the teachings of the authoritative Islamic sources. When they call someone an Islamophobe, it has nothing to do with Islam– they take advantage of the culture of shallowness to make people think the speaker is somehow opposed to Muslims. If they were honest they would say “Muslimophobe.” But who is a Muslim? Many people who come from Islamic countries or have Islamic-sounding names might not be Muslim at all. Many do not practice or even believe in Islam. In the United States, people have come from all parts of the world, including Islamic countries. America has never been against immigrants – against flesh and blood – it is opposed to the ideas that destroy freedom.

As a sharia lawyer, someone who truly understands Islam and sharia law, I know firsthand that living under sharia law is something to be feared. Why Americans have become so shallow and superficial that they do not bother to take the time to question new terms like Islamophobe stuns me.

Daniel Akbari is certified by the Iranian Bar Association as a Number One Attorney, is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Iran, and is the author of two books:HONOR KILLING: A Professionals Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources and New Jihadists and Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Activity on the Home Front

4123927469Secure Freedom Radio, May 12, 2015:

Frank Gaffney interviews Dr. MARK CHRISTIAN, Founder of the Global Faith Institute:

PART ONE:

  • Dr. Christian’s family background and his conversion from Islam to Christianity
  • How the abolishment of Shariah Law in Muslim-majority nations led to the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood
  • Thoughts on the ongoing power struggle in the Islamic State

PART TWO:

  • Origins of Shariah law
  • The phenomenon of Taqqiya and purposeful misdirection for the Islamic cause
  • Historical roots of the Muslim Brotherhood and the group’s presence in the United States
  • Incompatibility of Shariah law and Western, democratic constitutions

PART THREE:

  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s declared ambitions in the U.S.
  • Untangling the different relationships between jihadist groups
  • Muslim Brotherhood efforts to subvert the U.S. government from within
  • Parallels between militant and civilization jihad

PART FOUR:

  • Does “jihad” also have a more benign meaning?
  • The establishment of a caliphate within the United States by Muslim Brotherhood front organizations
  • What is the Exploratory Memorandum?

SHOCKER: Texas Jihadis Trained at Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Community Center of Phoenix

Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP)

Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP)

UTT, by John Guandolo, May 5, 2015:

As in nearly every jihadi attack in America since 9/11 – those thwarted and those which succeed in their evil plans – the jihadis were trained at a Muslim Brotherhood organization, the FBI is still looking for a motive, anti-American groups like the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center take sides with the terrorists, the media focuses on ensuring Muslims are not offended and turns to Hamas (doing business as CAIR) for advice, and the root of the problem is – yet again – ignored.

One Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leader in Phoenix, Arizona – Usama Shami – confirmed the two jihadis who were killed in Garland, Texas attended Shami’s MB Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP).  Shami specifically stated he knew both shooters well, especially Elton Simpson, and that Simpson had attended the ICCP for over ten years.

The property for the ICCP is owned by the bank for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America – NAIT (North American Islamic Trust).  NAIT was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood entity and a financial support organization for Hamas (a designated terrorist organization) in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas, 2008).

Click here for U.S. Government filing in HLF regarding NAIT (specifically pages 7, 12, 13).

The FBI was investigating NAIT back in the 1980’s for being a part of the Ikhwan (MB) in America.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Arabic website says it is waging a “Long and unrelenting jihad” against the West.  Their strategic document for North America – “An Explanatory Memorandum” – says “their work in America is a kind of grand jihad and calls for “Civilization Jihad” to “destroy Western civilization from within.”  The Muslim Brotherhood’s By-Laws state the MB “is an international Muslim body which seeks to establish Allah’s law (Sharia) in the land…” and call Muslims to “be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing the Islamic state.”

The MB’s strategic documents also says that MB Islamic Centers are the “axis” of their Movement to “supply (their) battalions.”  They go on to say their Islamic Centers are like the first Mosque in Medina which Mohammed established.  That mosque was where they stored food, water, ammunition and weapons.  It is where jihadis lived and trained.  It is where battles were planned, and was the place from which battles were launched.  The MB states this is the function of their Islamic Centers in America.

Reminder:  Hamas IS the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.

We have the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix owned by the MB bank and two of its longstanding members committing jihad against non-Muslims in accordance with Sharia.  What else would you expect?

The ICCP’s President Usama Shami said in a news interview that “All of the teachings in this mosque is against those actions (taken by Simpson and Soofi)…both of them were never engaged in any politics or any extreme views or extreme opinions.”

It is interesting that when he spoke with the LA Times Shami said he had not seen Simpson in a month, but later in the above video interview that time was extended to two to three months.  Lie much?

Will we believe him or the doctrine the MB states his Islamic Center adheres to?

This is an interesting contrast to Simpson’s attorney who said:  “He was very devout.  He was very vocal about being devout…I know that some of the statements he made like if you die on the battlefield then you get, whatever, you get the wives…that’s a belief of the Muslim faith.”

Nearly every jihadi who has launched an attack on U.S. soil since and including 9/11/2001, as well as those attacks which were thwarted by law enforcement, has been “radicalized”, trained, funded, and/or supported by one of the thousands of Muslim Brotherhood organizations across the United States.  From the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the Islamic Societies, Islamic Centers, Muslim American Society, and so many others, jihadis are launching jihad on our home turf and the very organizations and individuals leading those organizations are getting a free pass.

When will the arrest warrant for Usama Shami be issued for material support of terrorism?  How about shutting down the ICCP, seizing its property, taking its money, and bulldozing it to the ground?

How bad will it have to get before you decide enough is enough America?

Islam and Free Speech: Missing the Point in Garland

pic_giant_050415_SM_Garland-SWAT-Mohammed2

The purpose of the free-speech event was to highlight the threat posed by Islamic supremacists.

National Review, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY May 4, 2015:

‘Even free-speech enthusiasts are repulsed by obnoxious expression.” That acknowledgment prefaces the main argument I’ve made in Islam and Free Speech, a just-released pamphlet in the Broadside series from Encounter Books. Alas, in view of last night’s deadly events at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, the argument is more timely than I’d hoped.

In Garland, two jihadists opened fire on a free-speech event that was certain to be offensive to many Muslims. The gunmen wounded a security guard before being killed when police returned fire. The jihadists are reported to be roommates who resided in Phoenix. As this is written, only one of them has been identified: Elton Simpson. The wounded security guard, Bruce Joiner, was treated and released. Joiner works for the Garland Independent School District, which owns the Culwell Center.

Simpson was apparently what my friend, terrorism analyst Patrick Poole, describes as a “known wolf.” That’s a radical Muslim whom the Obama administration and the media are wont to dismiss as an anonymous, unconnected loner but who, in fact, has previously drawn the attention of national-security agents over suspected jihadist ties.

Simpson previously attempted to travel to Africa, apparently to join al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda franchise. He was reportedly convicted of lying to FBI agents, though a judge found the evidence insufficient to prove he was trying to join the terror group. The al-Shabaab connection seems salient now: Police are investigating tweets about the Garland event prior to the violence, allegedly posted by a young al-Shabaab jihadist who is said to be an American citizen.

The Garland free-speech event was a contest, sponsored by Pamela Geller’s New York–based American Freedom Defense Initiative. Participants were invited to draw cartoons of Islam’s prophet, in homage to the Charlie Hebdo artists killed by jihadists in France. Besides Ms. Geller, the featured speaker at the event was Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian whose life has been threatened for years for speaking openly about the scriptural moorings of Islamic terrorism. Al-Qaeda has publicly called for Wilders to be killed, and a notorious Australian imam called on Muslims to behead him because anyone who “mocks, laughs [at], or degrades Islam” must be killed by “chopping off his head.”

In Garland, activists opposed to the violence endorsed by Islamic doctrine and to the repression inherent in sharia law were invited to draw caricatures of Mohammed, with a $10,000 prize awarded to the “best” one. The contest was sure to yield images offensive to Muslims just as transgressive artist Andres Serrano had to know the public exhibition of his Piss Christ photograph would offend Christians.

Yet, as I argue in Islam and Free Speech, it will not do to blame the messenger for the violence. The shooting last night was not caused by the free-speech event any more than the Charlie Hebdo murders were caused by derogatory caricatures, or the rioting after a Danish newspaper’s publication of anti-Islam cartoons was caused by the newspaper. The violence is caused by Islamic supremacist ideology and its law that incites Muslims to kill those they judge to have disparaged Islam.

It will not do to blame the messenger for the violence. The shooting last night was not caused by the free-speech event any more than the Charlie Hebdo murders were caused by derogatory caricatures.

Christians were offended by Piss Christ, but they did not respond by killing the “artist” or blowing up the exhibiting museum. If any had, they would have been universally condemned for both violating society’s laws and betraying Christian tenets. In such a case, we would have blamed the killers, not the provocative art. There can be no right against being provoked in a free society; we rely on the vigorous exchange of ideas to arrive at sensible policy. And the greater the threat to liberty, the more necessary it is to provoke. 

The threat to liberty in this instance is sharia blasphemy law. A bloc of Muslim-majority countries, with the assistance of the Obama administration (led by the U.S. State Department, particularly under Hillary Clinton), is trying to use international law to impose Islam’s repressive law to make it illegal to subject Islam to negative criticism. No sensible person favors obnoxious expression or gratuitous insult. But as I contend in the pamphlet, there is a big difference between saying “I object to this illustration of insensitivity and bad taste” and saying “I believe that what repulses me should be against the law.”

Ms. Geller’s detractors are predictably out in droves today, prattling about how the violence would not have happened were it not for the offensive display. No one would feel deprived by the lack of sheer insult, they say, so wouldn’t it be better to compromise free-expression principles in exchange for achieving peaceful social harmony? But that line of thinking puts violent extortionists in charge of what we get to speak about — an arrangement no free society can tolerate.

It is very unfortunate that this debate is so often triggered by forms of expression that non-jihadists will find insulting and therefore that even anti-jihadists will find uncomfortable to defend. This grossly understates the stakes involved. This is about much more than cartoons. As I outline in Islam and Free Speech, classical sharia forbids most artistic representations of animate life, not just expressions that are obviously sacrilegious. More significantly, it deems as blasphemous not just expressions that insult the prophet and Islam itself but also

critical examinations of Islam . . . especially if they reach negative conclusions or encourage unbelief[;] proselytism of religions other than Islam, particularly if it involves encouraging Muslims to abandon Islam[; and any] speech or expression [that] could sow discord among Muslims or within an Islamic community. And truth is not a defense.

It is not the purpose of Pam Geller, Geert Wilders, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, and other activists to insult Muslims. Their mission is to awaken us to the challenge of Islamic supremacists — not just the violent jihadists but also the powerful Islamist forces behind the jihad. Islamists are attempting to coerce us into abandoning our commitment to free expression. They are pressuring us to accommodate their totalitarian system rather than accepting assimilation into our liberty culture.

You may not like the provocateurs’ methods. Personally, I am not a fan of gratuitous insult, which can antagonize pro-Western Muslims we want on our side. But let’s not make too much of that. Muslims who really are pro-Western already know, as Americans overwhelmingly know, that being offended is a small price to pay to live in a free society. We can bristle at an offense and still grasp that we do not want the offense criminalized.

It would be easy, in our preening gentility, to look down our noses at a Mohammed cartoon contest. But we’d better understand the scope of the threat the contest was meant to raise our attention to — a threat triggered by ideology, not cartoons. There is in our midst an Islamist movement that wants to suppress not only insults to Islam but all critical examination of Islam. That movement is delighted to leverage the atmosphere of intimidation created by violent jihadists, and it counts the current United States government among its allies.

— 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.

Video “Eliminating the Apostates”- Islamic State beheads, shoots 15 Yemeni soldiers

Islamic-State-Yemen-execution-soldiers-e1430448078191LWJ, by BILL ROGGIO, May 1, 2015:

The Islamic State in Yemen claimed credit for the brutal execution of 15 Yemeni soldiers who were captured in the city of Azzan in Shabwa province earlier this month. The treatment of the captured soldiers by the Islamic State presents a stark contrast to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s (AQAP) handling of captured Yemeni soldiers.

The Islamic State’s “Media Office for Shabwa Province” released a short, two minute 19 second video called “Eliminating the Apostates” on Twitter today. The video was obtained and translated by the SITE Intelligence Group.

In the video, the Islamic State displays 15 Yemeni soldiers. Local media reports indicated that tribal militias overran a military camp operated by the Yemeni Army’s 2nd Mountain Brigade in the city of Azzan in Shabwa province on April 12. Islamic State fighters from “Wilayat Ataq,” or Ataq province (Ataq is a city in Shabwa province), are reported to have executed the Yemeni soldiers days later, on April 14.

The 14 Yemeni soldiers are shown kneeling on the ground. Several of the captives are heard moaning and crying as armed Islamic State fighters stand behind them. Several of the soldiers identify themselves and their unit.

The video then briefly shows an Islamic State fighter sharpening a knife, then four of the captives are beheaded. The heads of the four soldiers are displayed on the ground. The Islamic State fighters then shoot 10 other soldiers, who are blindfolded and kneeling with their hands behind their backs, in the head. Finally, another soldier from the “Second Naval Brigade” is identified before he is shot in the head multiple times.

The graphic execution of the Yemeni soldiers draws a contrast in methodology between the Islamic State and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the dominant jihadist group in Yemen. The Islamic State has been challenging al Qaeda for control of the global jihad.

The Islamic State in Yemen, like other Islamic State branches in the Middle East and Africa, has been indiscriminate in its application of violence. In its first major attack in Yemen, the group killed more than 100 people in suicide attacks that targeted Houthi mosques in the capital of Sana’a. The Houthis, a Shiite group that is backed by Iran, have taken over most of northern and eastern Yemen, and have encroached on areas in the south. The Islamic State has accused AQAP of being soft on the Houthis, and has sought to cleave off the more hardline elements of AQAP’s rank and file.

AQAP was quick to distance itself from the Sana’a mosque attacks, saying that it was “committed to the guidelines” issued by al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri, who prohibited “targeting mosques, markets, and public places out of concern for the lives of innocent Muslims, and to prioritize the paramount interests.” [See LWJ report, Analysis: Why AQAP quickly denied any connection to mosque attacks.]

Unlike the Islamic State, AQAP has sought to convert captured Yemeni soldiers to its cause, and has also used the soldiers as part of its propaganda effort against the Yemeni state and the US. In a video released in October 2013, AQAP questioned Yemeni soldiers who were captured during a raid on a base in Shabwa province. In a back and forth with a Yemeni Army captain, the AQAP interviewer said that the Yemeni military and the US “are in the same trench.”

“The [American] spying drones are in the sky and you are on the ground,” the jihadist said to a group of Yemeni soldiers.

“What is the difference between you and the Americans? Haven’t you thought about this issue? Haven’t you considered yourselves and the Americans in one front? When Americans bombard our brothers with unmanned drones, who collect their bodies? It’s you the soldiers. You take their bodies. You and the Americans are in one front,” the AQAP leader continued.

But the AQAP leader then said that the soldiers are not the target of AQAP’s wrath, and appealed to the soldiers to quit fighting alongside the Americans and join AQAP’s cause.

AQAP’s strategy of limiting its attacks to military and government targets has built support amongst some Yemeni tribes. The Islamic State’s execution of the Yemeni soldiers is unlikely to build similar support. According to Yemeni media reports, the tribes in Azzam that participated in the raid that resulted in the capture of the Yemeni troops have disassociated with the jihadist group after the execution of the soldiers.

***

Here is the video: (h/t Pamela Geller)

The Media and Jihad

Published on Apr 26, 2015 by Political Islam

Every time that there is a major jihad attack, the media responds in the same way. There is now a routine that the authorities tell us:
Islam is the religion of peace

***

Minneapolisairport1

Muslim driver tries to run down cops at Minneapolis Airport by Pamela Geller

The horror — and the media continues to whitewash these vicious savage acts. The Islamic State has called for Muslims in the U.S. to use their car to attack non-Muslims, especially military personnel and police. But “Stanek said they believe the incident was isolated and does not appear to have any ties to homeland security.” The politically correct fools continue in their denial.

“Suspect Injured Following Officer-Involved Shooting At MSP,” by Susan-Elizabeth Littlefield, CBS Minnesota, April 26, 2015:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — One man was hospitalized Saturday night after an officer-involved shooting at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

After the shots were fired, police blocked off a portion of Terminal 1 for several hours to investigate.

According to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, which was called in to help with the investigation, airport police were responding to a report of suspicious persons in the terminal’s car rental ramp around 9:30 p.m.

As the officers were walking on the second level of the parking ramp, a vehicle deliberately drove at them. A press release states that police shot at the vehicle. The driver was taken to a nearby hospital. His condition is not known. Authorities identified the suspect Sunday as 36-year-old Abdulkadir Sheikh Mahmoud. Once he’s out of the hospital, he’ll be facing aggravated assault charges.

Sheriff Rich Stanek said officers were interacting with a vehicle when a second vehicle intentionally drove at officers who were on foot. The suspect in the vehicle, identified as Mahmoud, attempted to run over the officers and he was shot. Authorities said the suspect drove at officers without notice or provocation.

The release also states that an officer was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Stanek said they believe the incident was isolated and does not appear to have any ties to homeland security.

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)