by Ravi Kumar
September 16, 2014
While the United States tries to build a coalition of Arab allies to join the fight against the terrorist group ISIS, now known as the Islamic State, one group which stands to benefit directly is coming out against Western intervention and expressing unity with other radical jihadists.
A Syrian Muslim Brotherhood spokesman says attacks on the Islamic State by the United States and its allies are not the answer.
“Our battle with ISIS is an intellectual battle,” Omar Mushaweh said in a statement published Sept. 9 on the Syrian Brotherhood’s official website, “and we wish that some of its members get back to their sanity, we really distinguish between those in ISIS who are lured and brainwashed and they might go back to the path of righteous, and between those who has foreign agendas and try to pervert the way of the [Syrian] revolution.”
Rather, the first target for any Western intervention should be dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Mushaweh asserts, according to a translation of his comments by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
Such comments should reinforce Western concerns about the Syrian Brotherhood, whose members are prominent among the Free Syrian Army (FSA), one of the supposedly moderate factions in the Syrian civil war which receive U.S. training and weapons. And it shows the challenge of finding truly moderate allies on the ground in Syria. Compared to ISIS, the FSA might be considered moderate. Then again, ISIS was so ruthlessly violent that al-Qaida disavowed the group in February.
In addition, the Syrian Brotherhood openly mourned the death last week of a commander in Ahrar Al Asham, a Syrian faction with ties to al-Qaida.
Mushaweh’s views about the U.S. intervention are shared by other Brotherhood members. Another Brotherhood leader, Zuher Salem, minimized the ISIS threat by comparing current American rhetoric to that which preceded the 2003 Iraq invasion.
“All of these tales that are being told by America about the primitive, terrorist and threatening nature of the Islamic State are similar to the tales that have been told in regard to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and about the crimes against humanity,” Salem wrote in an article published Sept. 13 by the Arab East Center, a think tank associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. “It is trifling to race with others to condemn terrorism and the killing of the American journalist, because we should be aware the aim of this anti ISIS coalition is to pave the way for an Iranian hegemony over the region.”
Yusuf Al Qaradawi, an influential Brotherhood cleric living in Qatar, joined in criticizing the American military campaign against ISIS. “I totally disagree with [ISIS] ideology and means,” he wrote on Twitter, “but I don’t at all accept that the one to fight it is America, which does not act in the name of Islam but rather in its own interests, even if blood is shed.”
While both are Sunni Muslim movements, each seeking to establish a global Islamic Caliphate, ISIS views the Brotherhood as too passive, while the Brotherhood sees ISIS as being unnecessarily violent in pursuing its aims.
The two have common enemies, however, including the ruling regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan, which have worked to cripple the Brotherhood, and which ISIS considers infidel regimes which should be toppled in pursuit of a broader Islamic Caliphate.
In another indication the Syrian Brotherhood is no moderating force, it issued a statement on its website Sept. 10 mourning the killing of Ahrar Al Asham leader Hassan Aboud in a suicide bombing.
“Syria has given a constellation of the best of its sons, and the bravest leaders of the Islamic front and Ahrar Al Sham,” the head of the Brotherhood’s political bureau, Hassan Al Hashimi, said in the statement translated by the IPT. “We consider them Martyrs.”
Ahrar Al Sham is a radical group co-founded by Abu Khaled al-Suri, who was al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s designated representative in Syria. Al-Suri was killed in February in a suicide bombing believed to be carried out by ISIS.
Aboud made clear his ideological links to al-Qaida clear in a July 2013 Twitter post. “May God have mercy on the Mujahid Sheikh Abdullah Azzam. He was a scholar of Jihad and the morality.” Azzam was considered a mentor to Osama bin Laden, and pushed conspiracy theories involving Jewish and Christian plots against Islam.
The Brotherhood official mourning Aboud, Al Hashimi, has visited the United States a couple of times since the Syrian civil war started.
He spoke at the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in northern Virginia on Nov. 17, 2013, as part of a program organized by the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF). The SETF has worked closely with Muslim Brotherhood members and some of its officials have expressed anti-Semitic statements and solidarity with Hamas.
Still, the SETF has partnered with the State Department to implement training projects in Syria. Last December, the SETF’s executive director endorsed working with a coalition of Syrian opposition groups called the Islamic Front, even though several entities involved, including Ahrar Al-Sham, had fought with ISIS and the radical Jabhat al-Nusra, or al-Nusra Front. Four Islamic Front affiliates also endorsed a declaration calling for “the rule of sharia and making it the sole source of legislation” in a post-Assad Syria.
The announcement of the event was distributed to the Dar Al Hijrah mailing list, but without mentioning that Al Hashimi is the head of the political bureau of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Department of Justice has announced its new strategy for dealing with the threat of recruitment by the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS). This threat of ISIS recruitment in the Homeland took center stage recently, when Fox News’ Megan Kelly and Greta Van Susteren, highlighted the activities of Egyptian ISIS recruiter at a Minnesota mosque.
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, that strategy will be yet more “community outreach” in an effort to “counter violent extremism.” According to Attorney General Eric Holder:
Today, I am announcing that the Department of Justice is partnering with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center to launch a new series of pilot programs in cities across the nation. These programs will bring together community representatives, public safety officials, religious leaders, and United States Attorneys to improve local engagement; to counter violent extremism; and – ultimately – to build a broad network of community partnerships to keep our nation safe. Under President Obama’s leadership, along with our interagency affiliates, we will work closely with community representatives to develop comprehensive local strategies, to raise awareness about important issues, to share information on best practices, and to expand and improve training in every area of the country.
Time and time again, our government has shown that when it chooses community partners from the Muslim community in the United States, they almost invariably choose those who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This sad fact is bipartisan, evidenced in the Clinton, and Bush Administrations, but made the center piece of all Counterterrorism efforts by the Obama Administration and the Countering Violent Extremism strategy. This is policy announcement appears to be an expansion, a doubling down, on the CVE policy which has already failed dramatically. That said, the focus on an effort to “expand and improve training in every area of the country” is particularly worrisome, as it appears to echo a letter sent to the Obama administration’s counterterrorism czar by Muslim Brotherhood-aligned groups, and their allies, to target federal, state and local law enforcement for “reeducation.” As I noted in a piece at Breitbart News warning of this coming policy extension:
In the letter, the organizations call for an auditing of all intelligence and law enforcement training materials, and mandatory retraining for any federal, state or local law enforcement official who has ever received the training the group finds objectionable. They also seek to extend the training purge to any federal, state or local law enforcement organization which has receives federal money.
This reeducation program, if enacted by the Obama Administration, will represent a final victory for Islamists seeking to control U.S. policy on dealing with the jihadist threats.
You cannot defeat terrorism by running from ISIS into the waiting arms of the Muslim Brotherhood. That has always been the inherent strategic logic in the division of labor between Jihad (conducted by Al Qaeda, and now ISIS), and Dawah (preaching) carried out principly by the Brotherhood. This is shariah’s one-two punch, where the terrorism and violence of ISIS and Al Qaeda represents only the jab. As Sayyid Qutb, the infamous Muslim Brotherhood ideologue remarked,
This movement uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs and it uses physical power and Jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili (ed. ignorant, non-believing) system.”
The Obama Administration strategy for dealing with homegrown recruitment appears to be to send us from the ISIS frying pan into the Ikhwan fire.
It is not out of ignorance that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are denying the Islamic roots of the Islamic State jihadists. As I argued in a column here last week, we should stop scoffing as if this were a blunder and understand the destructive strategy behind it. The Obama administration is quite intentionally promoting the progressive illusion that “moderate Islamists” are the solution to the woes of the Middle East, and thus that working cooperatively with “moderate Islamists” is the solution to America’s security challenges.
I wrote a book a few years ago called The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America that addressed this partnership between Islamists and progressives. The terms “grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted from an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that lays bare the Brotherhood’s overarching plan to destroy the West from within by having their component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and opinion elites.
The plan is going well.
As long as the news media and even conservative commentators continue to let them get away with it, the term “moderate Islamist” will remain useful to transnational progressives. It enables them to avoid admitting that the Muslim Brotherhood is what they have in mind.
As my recent column explained, the term “moderate Islamist” is an oxymoron. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive sharia imposed. There is nothing moderate about sharia even if the Muslim in question does not advocate imposing it by violence.
Most people do not know what the term “Islamist” means, so the contradiction is not apparent to them. If they think about it at all, they figure “moderate Islamist” must be just another way of saying “moderate Muslim,” and since everyone acknowledges that there are millions of moderate Muslims, it seems logical enough. Yet, all Muslims are not Islamists. In particular, all Muslims who support the Western principles of liberty and reason are not Islamists.
If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate. There is, moreover, less to their nonviolence than meets the eye. Many Islamists who do not personally participate in jihadist aggression support violent jihadists financially and morally — often while feigning objection to their methods or playing semantic games (e.g., “I oppose terrorism but I support resistance,” or “I oppose the killing of innocent people . . . but don’t press me on who is an innocent”).
Understandably, the public is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people the government describes as “moderates” and portrays as our “allies.” If transnational progressives were grilled on these vaporous terms, though, and forced to concede, say, that the Muslim Brotherhood was the purportedly “moderate opposition” our government wants to support in Syria, the public would object. While not expert in the subject, many Americans are generally aware that the Brotherhood supports terrorism, that its ideology leads young Muslims to graduate to notorious terrorist organizations, and that it endorses oppressive Islamic law while opposing the West. Better for progressives to avoid all that by one of their dizzying, internally nonsensical word games — hence, “moderate Islamist.”
I rehearse all that because last week, right on cue, representatives of Brotherhood-tied Islamist organizations appeared with Obama-administration officials and other apologists for Islamic supremacism to ostentatiously “condemn” the Islamic State as “not Islamic.”
As I recount with numerous examples in The Grand Jihad, this is the manipulative double game the Brotherhood has mastered in the West, aided and abetted by progressives of both parties. While speaking to credulous Western audiences desperate to believe Islam is innately moderate, the Brothers pretend to abhor terrorism, claim that terrorism is actually “anti-Islamic,” and threaten to brand you as an “Islamophobe” racist — to demagogue you in the media, ban you from the campus, and bankrupt you in court — if you dare to notice the nexus between Islamic doctrine and systematic terrorism committed by Muslims. Then, on their Arabic sites and in the privacy of their mosques and community centers, they go back to preaching jihad, championing Hamas, calling for Israel’s destruction, damning America, inveighing against Muslim assimilation in the West, and calling for society’s acceptance of sharia mores.
The Investigative Project’s John Rossomando reports on last Wednesday’s shenanigans at the National Press Club. The Islamist leaders who “urged the public to ignore [the Islamic State’s] theological motivations,” included “former Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR) Tampa director Ahmed Bedier, [who] later wrote on Twitter that IS [the Islamic State] ‘is not a product of Islam,’ and blamed the United States for its emergence.”
Also on hand were moderate moderator Haris Tarin, Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Johari Abdul-Malik, an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va. All of these Islamists are consultants to the Obama administration on policy matters; Magid is actually a member Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Where to begin? CAIR, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, is a Muslim Brotherhood creation conceived to be a Western-media-savvy shill for Islamic supremacism in general, and Hamas in particular. At the 2007–08 terrorism-financing prosecution of Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case — involving a Brotherhood conspiracy that funneled millions of dollars to Palestinian jihadists — CAIR was proven to be a co-conspirator, albeit unindicted. Mr. Bedier, who is profiled by the Investigative Project here, is a notorious apologist for Hamas — the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, which is formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law. He also vigorously championed such terrorists as Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Sami al-Arian (who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide material support to terrorism).
I’ve profiled MPAC here. It was founded by disciples of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and champions of both Hezbollah and the Sudanese Islamists who gave safe-haven to al-Qaeda during the mid Nineties. After the atrocities of September 11, 2001, MPAC’s executive director, Salam al-Marayati, immediately urged that “we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list.” Without a hint of irony, MPAC’s main business is condemning irrational suspicion . . . the “Islamophobia” it claims Muslims are systematically subjected to. Like many CAIR operatives and other purveyors of victim politics, MPAC officials tend to double as Democratic-party activists.
Read more at National Review
Published on Sep 14, 2014 by theunitedwest
Following President Obama’s humorous non-sequitur, “the Islamic State is NOT Islamic…” Foxs’ Megyn Kelly tangled with Hassan Shibly the leader of CAIR, Florida as he attempted to defend the President’s incoherent statement. Following Shibly’s efforts to position himself, his organization CAIR and Islamic doctrine as something separate and distinct from the beliefs of the Islamic State, The United West is releasing this video expose’ about Hassan Shibly, CAIR and their parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood showing how these Muslim Brotherhood individuals and organizations are indeed in the business of Islamic propaganda. Check out Tom Trento’s investigative report on Muslim Brothers who have infiltrated the Obama Administration and work in collaboration with the President.
Megyn Kelly vs Muslim Guest (Hassan Shibly) Is Isis Islamic Or Not?
Even as fears grow that ISIS terrorists are secreted inside America’s Muslim community, dozens of American Muslim groups have fired off a letter to President Obama demanding he cut off federal funding for sheriffs and other local police receiving anti-jihadist training from a former FBI agent.
Veteran FBI Special Agent John Guandolo, formerly of the bureau’s Washington field office, has been training local law enforcement officials and federal agents in tactics for identifying and ferreting out Islamic terrorists and their supporters inside U.S. cities.
But more than 75 Islamic and leftist groups upset with his focus on the religious motivation of terrorists last month sent a five-page letter to the White House complaining of a “biased” training program.
Led by the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a major federal terrorism case, the coalition demanded the president implement a “mandatory retraining program” for “all federal, state and local law enforcement officials” who have been trained by Guandolo.
It also called for “disciplinary action” against federal agents and local police officials who participate in training with “discriminatory” counter-terrorism materials.
Moreover, the coalition’s White House demands include requiring “federal agencies that provide law enforcement and homeland security funding to state and local governments to condition such funding on carrying out training or otherwise using federal funds in a manner that upholds our nation’s commitment to equal treatment and equal justice under the law and barring the use of trainers or materials that exhibit bias against any race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.”
Previously, CAIR has tried to block Guandolo’s training of sheriff’s offices in Culpeper County, Virginia; Rutherford County, Tennessee; and Franklin County, Ohio. The Islamic group currently is pressuring law enforcement officials in Maricopa County, Arizona, to cancel Guandolo’s scheduled Sept. 19 briefing with some 300 prosecutors and police.
This week, CAIR tried unsuccessfully to force Colorado Christian University to disinvite Guandolo from speaking before its Centennial Institute about the threat from, as Guandolo put it, “the massive jihadi network that exists in the U.S.” CAIR’s complaints against Guandolo got unusually personal and shrill, with CAIR official Corey Saylor comparing Guandolo to “white supremacists” in a letter to university officials.
Training ties CAIR to jihadi network
Why is the counter-terrorism training performed by Guandolo, which is singled out by name in the letter, so threatening to pro-jihad groups?
For one, Guandolo lays out the radical Muslim Brotherhood’s extensive jihadi network in America, and federal prosecutors have identified CAIR as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas in America. He advises that CAIR’s branch offices located in major cities across the U.S. should be aggressively investigated.
In his intensive three-day training program, Guandolo gives a detailed understanding of Shariah and how understanding it and the Muslim Brotherhood network necessarily changes how traffic stops, interviews and homicide investigations are conducted, among other things.
He explains that local law enforcement is key to neutralizing the jihadist threat. New federal investigative guidelines issued by Attorney General Eric Holder have overly restrained federal agents’ ability to effectively root out bad guys in local mosques and the Muslim community.
“A sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement officer in the nation,” Guandolo explained. “Sheriffs can make life very difficult for jihadis once they understand how they operate and where to look for them.”
Read more at WND
by John Rossomando
September 10, 2014
More than a dozen American Muslim leaders condemned the Islamic State’s (IS) brutal tactics as contrary to Islam Wednesday during a press conference held at the National Press Club.
But in doing so, several speakers urged the public to ignore the terrorist group’s theological motivations.
Talib Shareef, imam of Masjid Muhammad in Washington, D.C., exhorted the media to refer to IS as the “Anti-Islamic” State because its actions run contrary to the teachings of Mohammed.
“This is not an Islamic State of being; it’s not an Islamic State of mind; and it’s not an Islamic State that the prophet himself created in his first state, where he saw this beautiful peace and equality for all religions – Jews, Christians that were there with him,” Shareef said, noting what Muslims call the Medina Charter.
Another speaker, former Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR) Tampa director Ahmed Bedier, later wrote on Twitter that IS “is not a product of Islam,” and blamed America for its emergence.
Haris Tarin, Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), moderated the event. It included noted Muslim leaders such as Imam Mohamed Magid, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and member of the president’s Homeland Security Advisory Council; Johari Abdul-Malik, an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va.; and Humera Khan, head of the group Mufflehun, which aims to keep young Muslims from radicalizing.
Several representatives of the Obama administration attended, including senior adviser Rand Beers, David Gersten, coordinator for countering violent extremism at the Department of Homeland Security; and Kareem Shora, section chief for the bureau of community engagement at the Department of Homeland Security; and Seamus Hughes of the National Counterterrorism Center.
“Long years of experience have shown us that this problem cannot be solved by law enforcement and security measures alone,” Gersten said. “Local communities are the front line of defense and response, and are essential in identifying recruitment, especially as Syrian-based groups look to target Westerners.”
Gersten noted that local law enforcement and members of the Muslim community should be the first line of defense against those intent on becoming jihadists.
Several speakers reiterated their constant refrain since the 9/11 attacks that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, noting the 2005 fatwa against terrorism issued by the Fiqh Council of North America – an organization that currently includes Jamal Badawi, who has endorsed suicide bombings.
Humera Khan offered condolences to the mothers of beheaded American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley, saying their murders had nothing to do with Islam. She and Tarin both emphasized that young Muslims need to be taught that the rhetoric used by jihadist recruiters has nothing to do with authentic Islamic teaching.
“Just because someone uses Islamic terminology does not make one a Muslim,” Asma Hanif, executive director and board member of the Baltimore-based Muslimat Al-Nisaat, women’s shelter.
Magid called IS a “cult” that had nothing to do with Islam because it has killed more Muslims than anyone else, demolished mosques and killed Christians in Iraq.
“All of this is against the foundation and teaching of Islam,” Magid said. “It was our Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who said whoever mistreats a Christian or a Jew, or any person of another faith, I am his enemy on the day of judgment.
“The Holy Qur’an says whoever takes one life it as if he has taken the life of all of humanity, and anyone who saved one life; it is though he has saved all of humanity.”
The Investigative Project on Terrorism challenged Magid, citing Surah 9:29 of the Quran, which IS invokes to justify killing Christians. It says: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
Christians have become subject to the jizyah, or poll tax, since IS seized Raqqa in Syria earlier this year and Mosul in Iraq earlier this summer. Those subject to the jizyahface death if they refuse to pay or convert to Islam. IS similarly cited the Islamic law book known as “Reliance of the Traveler” to justify killing Yazidis and requiring them to convert to its brand of Islam to be spared.
Magid insisted that IS had acted outside of the bounds of Islam, noting that Muslim scholars never mandated killing all non-Muslims in Iraq or Syria during the 1,400 years before IS came into being.
“Muslims had ruled this area. Why didn’t they kill them?” Magid asked about Christians, Jews and Yazidis in the area before IS. “We have stated on our web site when I was president of ISNA [that] any killing of civilians, whether by Hamas, whether by the Jihad, whether by x or y, whether by Jewish, whether by Christians, whether by Hindus, whether by Buddhists, it is unacceptable.”
Ironically, IS makes a similar argument against Muslims who criticize the group. Those are not true Muslims, IS claims.
The strategy of disowning radicals and denying their theological motivation is a losing one, argued James Brandon in an article Tuesday.
“When moderate Muslim groups use takfirism (calling Muslims with other views apostates) to tackle extremism, this dangerous and intrinsically intolerant doctrine is therefore not challenged but is instead reaffirmed,” wrote Brandon, an associate fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR). “A better approach is to accept that Islamist extremists, however distasteful their view of Islam, remain Muslims, however much other Muslims, and non-Muslims, might dislike their version of Islam.”
At Wednesday’s news conference, Magid discussed the need for programs aimed at Muslim youth to counter the jihadist narrative that has led to over 300 American Muslims to fight for IS and other jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq over the past three years. The jihadists’ theological arguments needed to be countered point by point, he said.
“There’s nothing cool about being a jihadist! You’re a loser!” said Johari Abdul-Malik, whose mosque has been home to numerous individuals arrested in connection with jihadist plots. “I want to point out that I am black! We never conflated the actions of the KKK with Christianity.”
But one of Abdul-Malik’s colleagues at Dar al-Hijrah, Shaker Elsayed, endorsed the concept of violent jihad as recently as February 2013. During a talk at a Northern Virginia high school, he preached that Muslim men would be last in line except if it was for “arms for jihad.”
America’s Muslim community provides the first line of defense against terrorists acting in the name of Islam, they said. Abdul-Malik suggested imams are eager to work with the FBI to counter terror.
“We are on the front line because we are the ones who are in the chat rooms and on Facebook talking to them and saying, ‘You know what, brother or sister, I think they just went over the line,’ and the data shows that we are the best defense,” Abdul-Malik said. “I have a message for law enforcement. First, I want to thank you … because myself, and other imams, sometimes we get an agent who comes in our office and says, ‘Do you know something about this person or that person?’
“We tell the truth and have saved the lives of many people.”
Abdul-Malik’s sentiments are not shared by other American Muslim groups.
CAIR, which portrays FBI agents as ruthless schemers out to set up Muslims for trumped-up charges, was noticeably absent from Wednesday’s news conference. Its Minnesota chapter obstructed FBI investigations into al-Shabaab’s recruitment of Somali Muslims in the Twin Cities, and its San Francisco chapter published a postersaying: “Build A Wall of Resistance: Don’t Talk to the FBI.”
Another group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which counts Magid as a member, published an article in 2008 written by Hatim al-Haj, a member of its fatwa committee, saying that working for the FBI was “impermissible” because of the “harm they inflict on Muslims.”
As the United States commemorates the 13th anniversary of 11 September 2001 and President Barack Obama deliberates a strategy to manage terror threats from the Islamic State (IS), the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) and its Secretary General Ousama Jammal still have not published any video, audio, or transcripts from their inaugural banquet held at the Hilton Crystal City Hotel in June 2014. Two current members of Congress, U.S. Representatives Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota’s 5th District) and André Carson (Democrat, Indiana’s 7th District), were invited by Jammal to speak at the Washington, DC area event which launched the first ever Muslim Brotherhood political party in the U.S. Not even the respective congressional offices have made available publicly the remarks delivered by Ellison and Carson at this high level Muslim Brotherhood function at a time when the Obama administration’s foreign policy involving Muslim Brotherhood power-grabs in Egypt, Libya, Syria and elsewhere has been marked by repeated fiascos.
USCMO Secretary General Jammal plays a key leadership role for the Muslim Brotherhood’s flagship U.S. political party and handles the position of primary spokesman as well. He’s well-suited to the Brotherhood messaging agenda: Jammal is president of Fine Media Group, the distribution company for the film Mohammed: The Last Prophet, which was completed just months before the 11 September 2001 attacks. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) praised the film as an opportunity for individuals and families from all faith backgrounds “to learn more about an historic figure like Prophet Mohammed and events that shaped today’s world.”
In February 2004, Ousama Jammal, then president of the Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview, Illinois characterized the U.S. government counterterrorism program as a “witch hunt.” He declared that it was a “Zionist agenda” that prompted federal officials to close three Islamic charities operating near the mosque and prevent Sabri Samirah, a leader from the mosque and Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), from returning to the U.S. from Jordan. What Jammal neglected to mention was that, in fact, it was a HAMAS operative – Mousa Abu Marzook – who established the Islamic Association for Palestine in 1981. On 8 October 1987, the U.S. Department of State (DoS) designated HAMAS a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The IAP was also parent to the Council on American Islamic Relations, which was incorporated in 1994 by the IAP leadership that included Nihad Awad (current CAIR National Executive Director and USCMO member), Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber.
As shown by court documents, the IAP was a prong of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, until the U.S. government froze the IAP’s assets and shut it down in December 2004 on the grounds that it was funding terrorism. The IAP was identified as one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s twenty-nine likeminded “organizations of our friends” in the May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”
Before USCMO Secretary General Jammal invited U.S. Representatives Ellison and Carson to the USCMO’s historic inaugural event in June 2014 in the Washington, DC area, he likely would have been aware that both these members of Congress previously had participated at various conventions of Muslim Brotherhood organizations. One of these engagements included the Islamic Society of North America’s annual convention in August 2008, where Ellison and Carson discussed effective strategies for the community-based political advocacy necessary to mobilize the Muslim political machine in the U.S.
In December 2008, U.S. Representative Ellison made history as the first member of Congress to make a MAS-sponsored hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society (MAS) was created by the Muslim Brotherhood; MAS also is a founding member of the USCMO. In 2007 and 2008, Ellison gave the keynote address at MAS conventions in Minnesota. This very same MAS Minnesota chapter that paid for Ellison’s hajj highlighted writings on its website from Islamic clerics who praised HAMAS and urged Muslims to “wage Jihad until death.” The architects of HAMAS and some of Al-Qaeda’s founding figures were members of the Muslim Brotherhood first.
During a Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America (MAS-ICNA) convention in the summer of 2012, U.S. Representative Carson stated in his address about the State of The American Family that “America will never win the war against terrorism without help from the Muslim community. America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran.”
Carson continued on an aggrieved and somewhat exaggerate theme, noting that “America must understand that she needs Muslims. There are over 7 million Muslims in this country. While we are under attack, we cannot retreat. We have been a part of America since the inception of America…Now, It is unfortunate that there are those who are thinking at this convention right now, we are having secret meetings, that we are plotting to destroy this country. But I say to those who are here undercover, Allah will not allow you to stop us.”
The lack of transparency apparently favored by the USCMO and its Secretary General Jammal, at least when U.S. Congressmen with a record of Muslim Brotherhood linkages are involved, doesn’t bode well for any of them. Careful control of the USCMO image, narrative, and messaging to the U.S. public may shield them from criticism for the moment, but at a time when the Muslim Brotherhood has been declared a terrorist entity by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and the Islamic State (a similarly jihadist organization) is running amok across the Middle East, it is going to be difficult for the USCMO—or its Congressional pals—to maintain the façade forever.
For years, a handful of national security experts, NGOs, and members of Congress have been trying to raise a red flag over what they suspected were active influence operations by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.
(The RAND Corporation defines influence operations as “the collection of tactical information about an adversary as well as the dissemination of propaganda in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent.”)
On June 13, 2012, five members of Congress called for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence operations in the Obama administration. The five members– Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Tom Rooney (R-FL), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)– were widely criticized for doing so, even by their own Republican leadership, including John McCain (R-AZ), John Boehner (R-OH), and Mike Rogers (R-MI).
At the time, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) said, “It’s not right to question the loyalty of fellow Americans without any evidence.” Well, now we have the evidence.
The New York Times published a comprehensive article on September 7th entitled, “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks.” The article documents multi-million dollar donations to Washington-based think tanks that include the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council, by foreign governments as a way of buying influence in Washington.
For example, the government of Qatar made a $14.8 million donation to the Brookings Institution. It is a matter of public record that Qatar is a key funder and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and, indeed, that supporting Muslim Brotherhood parties has been a cornerstone of Qatar’s foreign policy.
According to Middle East Monitor, The Emir of Qatar, Shaikh Tamim bin-Hamad, said that support for the Muslim Brotherhood is a “duty” for which no thanks are necessary. Qatar is home to the pro-Brotherhood channel Al Jazeera, to Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, considered the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Qatar has directly funded a number of Muslim Brotherhood entities, including Hamas and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar has also provided refuge to many exiled Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
While The New York Times does not make explicit the link between Qatar’s position on the Muslim Brotherhood and its support for the Brookings Institution, the Times does report that the former prime minister of Qatar sits on the Brookings board and that Brookings staff meet regularly with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities. The report says that Qatar’s large donations to Brookings buy something of a guarantee that Brookings will burnish the image of Qatar. It does not go into specific policies or positions that Brookings has advanced as a result of this alliance. But a close look at Brookings’ publications makes clear that promoting the Muslim Brotherhood has been a key part of that agenda.
In particular, Shadi Hamid, Director of Research at the Brookings Doha Center, has consistently argued that the United States must learn to live with political Islam and that supporting the “non-violent” Muslim Brotherhood is the West’s only way of forestalling further radicalization and future threats from the “violent” Islamists such as Al Qaeda. For example, in one article, Shahid argued that the U.S. should exert its influence in Egypt and Jordan to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in the upcoming elections: “With much-anticipated elections in both countries scheduled for 2010 and 2011, the Obama administration as well as the U.S. Congress have the opportunity to weigh in and address the question of Islamist participation, something they have so far avoided doing.”
The fact that the New York Times has provided proof of foreign-government influence operations in America’s national security community should now raise serious concerns about some major policy decisions in recent years, where foreign interference was suspected but never proven.
Read more at Breitbart
By RACHEL LIPSKY:
To fully appreciate the meaning of interfaith dialogues with so-called “moderate” Muslims and friends, consider the apt Sears Optical commercial. “Mama,” Kitty’s myopic owner, fails to see without her glasses. She opens the door to let Kitty in to “snuggle with mama” but instead, a raccoon―known to carry rabies―runs in and jumps in with ‘mama’ on her cozy bed.
Consider this an analogy for a distressing drama in progress at Chautauqua Institution, a strikingly beautiful summer retreat in Chautauqua, N.Y. While enveloped by pastoral landscape, Lake Chautauqua, beautiful houses and gardens, and enriched by music, visual arts, ballet, opera, symphony, chamber music and much more, Chautauqua is opening its doors to another sort of rabid beast.
After toying with the idea for many years, Chautauqua’s religion department this summer announced plans to add a Cordoba House to the Institution’s “Abrahamic family,” to be led by the infamous Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a move it describes as “highly supported by Chautauqua Faith leaders.”
What’s the rush? Why now, when bands of Islamic brigands roam much of the Middle East and Africa, and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers worldwide endanger Western civilization? Why at this moment, as Islamic jihadists slaughter Christians throughout the entire Middle East as well as elsewhere. After all, Chautauqua Institution was founded by Protestant Christians.
Rather than outrage over endemic tyrannical Islamic abuses of Christians, associate religion department director Maureen Rovegno expresses what an objective individual could at best describe as naiveté:
“The only way that this fear [of Islam] can be alleviated, or neutralized, is to get to know each other in a personal way.” As the Psalm goes: ‘How good is it, and how pleasant, when people dwell together in unity’.”
Thus, only this summer, Chautauqua featured five influential Muslim Brotherhood functionaries and apologists as guest speakers: Former Islamic Circle of North America president Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, Imam Rauf, Dalia Mogahed, Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, a Georgetown University professor and head of its Prince Alwaeed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, eponymous for the Saudi royal who in 2005 donated $20 million to the center.
Esposito has long espoused views consistent with Brotherhood doctrine and during the 1990′s was known to claim that Islamic fundamentalism, in fact, was democratic and posed no threat to the U.S. Esposito has also served with global Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusef Qaradawi―since 1999 banned for his terror support from entry to the U.S.―at both the Institue of Islamic Political Thought and the Circle of Tradition and Progress as well as the United Association For Studies and Research (USAR), part of the Hamas’ U.S. Muslim Brotherhood support infrastructure.
On Aug. 15, 2014, I tried to question Esposito following his presentation at the Chautauqua Hall of Philosophy. Chaos briefly ensued. I began with a referral to Sheikh Qaradawi, the MB spiritual leader banned in the U.S., and a major supporter of Hamas―the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
John Esposito is known to view Sheikh Yusef Qaradawi as a “reformist.”
Karen Armstrong considers him a moderate.
Imam Rauf favorably describes him as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”
Dalia Mogahed, a featured Chautauqua speaker during the Week on Egypt, conducted her first interview with Qaradawi on his Islam Online website.
(All four, presumably involved with Chautauqua’s future Muslim House, were the Institution’s guest speakers this summer.)
I intended to share the following data on the horrors that Qaradawi sanctions, authorizes and stands for. Esposito refused to let me read even a small sample of Qaradawi’s edicts:
・ Qaradawi condones female genital mutilation;
・ Qaradawi endorses killing Muslims who leave Islam (apostates);
・ Qaradawi claims that Hitler was sent by Allah to punish the Jews (see video);
・ Qaradawi declares force a legitimate means to establish or support Islamic principles (“changing wrong by force whenever possible”) Priorities of the Islamic Movement chapter
・ Qaradawi promotes Islamic conquest of the West;
・ Qaradawi describes the mosque as a political institution to mobilize participants for jihad;
・ Qaradawi endorsed the use of suicide bombers and killing Americans in Iraq.
Time clearly was not at issue. The preceding questioner was as short as possible. To paraphrase, he asked (55:13-55:45)
“The U.S. state department declares Hamas a terrorist organization. Would you be willing to denounce Hamas?”
Esposito claimed that this was not his topic. When pressed, Esposito again dodged.
At other Chautauqua assemblies, questioners ran on at length but asked no question—and received applause. On Jul. 15, 2014, after Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid spoke, for example, another woman stood in the same Hall of Philosophy and for two minutes (1:03:27 – 1:05:05) bemoaned the fate of Sami Al-Arian, a “convicted terrorist-supporting felon, …under…separate indictment for criminal contempt,” as if he were a “poor victim.” Al Arian workedwith the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and served as a board member. In September 1991, Al Arian was caught on tape declaring:
“These people – whom God, the Glorious and sublime, had made into monkeys and pigs, had become discontent and angry with, had cursed in this world and in the hereafter… [Koran 5:78, 5:60, and related Hadith]”
On Aug. 15, by contrast, I could have finished my question in under one minute. However, Esposito interrupted repeatedly and instructed me to “show some civility.” (55:50 – 58:40) This same man refers to the wicked Qaradawi ― for good reason banned from the U.S. for 15 years ― as a “reformist” and “continues to consider Al-Arian a ‘very close friend’ and ‘a man of conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice’.” Obviously, he wished only to conceal the truth.
Fellow audience members shouted me down, displaying appallingly belligerent disrespect. They thus unveiled Chautauqua’s general tolerance for such fascist attitudes: not a single voice asked the hecklers to behave with decorum.
Read more at PJ Media
- Georgetown’s Esposito Joins Israel Boycott (investigativeproject.org)
Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler:
The New York Post’s Paul Sperry reported Sunday that the media director of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) maybe a former Boston resident named Ahmad Abousamra. Abousamra was an attendee at the same infamous Boston-area mosque that played host to Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Not only that but Abousamra’s father, was a board member at the mosque, according to Sperry.
The Islamic Society of Boston, founded by self-identified Muslim Brother and convicted Al Qaeda financier Abdulrahman Alamoudi featured Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, famous for authorizing the use of Hamas suicide bombings and the killing of American civilians in Iraq, as a trustee. Other terrorist alum from ISB include Tarek Mehenna, a long time friend of Abousamra, and “Lady Al Qaeda” Aafia Siddiqui, whose release ISIS demanded as part of their negotiations over the fate of executed American journalist James Foley.
The ISB mosque was the same one that U.S. Representative from Texas Louie Gohmert questioned then FBI director Robert Mueller over in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, which led Mueller to admit that while he was unaware that the elder Tsarnaev attended the mosque, the FBI had done “outreach” there.
This preference for outreach to, rather than investigation of, groups (and mosques) associated with the Muslim Brotherhood will only worsen if efforts to hamper U.S. government’s use of informants in and around mosques are successful. This campaign, called the Safe Spaces Initiative, is led by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, but has received assistance from a wide variety of Islamic and left-wing organizations, including Human Right’s Watch (HRW). HRW recently launched a major campaign to prohibit the use of informants in tandem to the MPAC effort. The HRW’s poster boy for that campaign was convicted terrorist James Cromitie, who was the center of a terrorist plot given a recent whitewashing by the HBO documentary “The Newburgh Sting.” As CSP has documented elsewhere, Cromitie was a man committed to the doctrine of shariah, who desired to engage in jihad. The fact that defense allegations of entrapment were demolished by a court has not stopped HRW from attempting to re-characterize the case as one of FBI malfeasance. Like the false allegations of illegal surveillance of Muslim suspects, these campaigns seek to use public opinion to force law enforcement and national security officials from engaging in the necessary, and legally authorized, work of protecting the country.
How many Abousamaras, Mehennas, Tsarnaevs, and Siddiquis are out there, who will not be uncovered until it is to late because the hands of law enforcement have been tied to a failed strategy of outreach?
Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Mohamed Elibiary, an Islamist with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and a record of influence operations in the service of its agenda, has announced his departure after five years on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. We can only hope that – at a moment when the danger posed by shariah-adherent Muslims is becoming more palpable by the day – the Department decided to stop legitimating an advisor who has publicly championed that it was, “ inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ return”, contended that the United States is “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.”
Elibiary had always been brazen in his support for Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, including featuring the Muslim Brotherhood “R4Bia” symbol on his twitter page, and publicly lauding Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb.
In 2011, Elibiary was also suspected of utilizing his security clearance in order to access confidential documents from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and seeking to “shop” the files to journalists in order to label then Presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry an “Islamophobe.” In May 2014, during testimony before Congress, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted to Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX), that this was “problematic.”
Whatever the cause of Elibiary’s departure from a senior advisory capacity in the Obama administration, it must be welcomed because – as documented in the Center for Security Policy’s online, video-based course entitled The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) – he played a prominent role in blinding the U.S. government to the threat posed by the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad.” This was the practical upshot of a sequence of events that began with Elibiary being given the FBI’s highest civilian award at the Bureau’s Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia in September 2011.
Shortly thereafter, Spencer Ackerman of Wired Magazine published pictures of materials in the FBI Training Academy’s Library that Elibiary and his ilk deemed “offensive” accompanied by a series of screeds about the need to stop employing such information and trainers employing it to prepare Bureau personnel to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On November 8, 2011, then-Homeland Security Advisor to the President (now CIA Director) John Brennan agreed not only to accommodate that demand but applied the purge to the U.S. military, U.S. intelligence community and Department of Homeland Security, as well.
Unfortunately, as welcome as the news is that Mohamed Elibiary may be less able in the future to run subversive influence operations from within the U.S. government, his next publicly announced mission is disconcerting. In response to a Tweeted question from investigative reporter Ryan Mauro (who conducted a highly illuminating interview with Elibiary in the fall of 2013), the former Senior Fellow at the Obama Department of Homeland Security announced that he was now going to turn his attention to “reform[ing] the conservative movement so the GOP can win in 2016.”
I had an opportunity to witness personally Mohamed Elibiary’s involvement with the conservative movement when I was invited in the Spring of 2013 to address a conservative group that meets monthly in the Park Cities neighborhood of Dallas, Texas. Undeterred by his presence, I briefed the group on the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, its goals of imposing shariah worldwide under the rule of a Caliph, and its practice of stealthy, pre-violent “civilization jihad” to advance that agenda.
I also discussed the enabling role that has been played on behalf of and with Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamists like Abdurahman Alamoudi, Sami al-Arian, Nihad Awad and Suhail Khan in their influence operations targeting the George W. Bush in the run-up to and during his administration by a prominent conservative activist, Grover Norquist. As recounted at length in Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right, the Brotherhood front called the Islamic Free Market Institute, founded by Norquist and Alamoudi, and Norquist’s self-styled “Center-Right” Coalition meetings in Washington and similar groups meeting in state capitals and major cities across the country have served as vehicles for facilitating the penetration and subversion of the conservative movement.
In the course of my Park Cities briefing last year, I did not mention Elibiary by name and he did not make any intervention or otherwise challenge my briefing. After the meeting ended and he left, however, I asked the organizer, “Why do you have a Muslim Brother in this meeting?” Interestingly, he did not reply by saying, “Who are you talking about?” or “What evidence do you have that anyone here is a Muslim Brother?” Instead, he simply said, “The Center-Right Coalition recommended him.”
One can only assume that if Mohamed Elibiary is going to be involved in “reforming the conservative movement,” he will be doing it with the help of Grover Norquist. And that prospect should be of concern to all of us – as are Norquist’s past dealings with such Islamists to, among many others, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin and six of their colleagues in the community of influential national security practitioners who signed a cover letter accompanying the Statement of Facts that makes up the body of Agent of Influence. It should be required reading for all conservatives.
Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood — as well as all other Islamists — have no place in the U.S. government.
By Ryan Mauro:
Mohamed Elibiary announced that he has left his position as a senior advisor with the Department of Homeland Security. Elibiary, a stalwart supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, said he was leaving so he can focus on “reforming” the conservative movement ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Under the Obama Administration, Elibiary served on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Homeland Security Advisory Committee for five years. He also served on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group and the DHS Faith-Based Security and Communications Advisory Committee.
Elibiary is a long-time Texas Republican Party official and was a delegate for Senator John McCain in 2008. He continues to identify himself as a conservative Republican and argues that he can help the party’s electoral prospects by moving its foreign policy in a pro-Islamist direction.
Elibiary is known for his almost daily advocacy for the Muslim Brotherhood on Twitter. He admits being intimately involved with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, which he describes as a “social network.”
“People like me know of the brotherhood group in a much more personal manner than the Average White Guy, who has no more insight than what’s available in the media,” he wrote.
On September 5, he tweeted that the Muslim Brotherhood is “intellectually undermining” the Islamic State terrorist group (formerly known as ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) and that the Brotherhood has been vital to counter-radicalization for over 40 years. He stated that if the Brotherhood did not exist, the world would “rush to create it.”
The Clarion Project contacted Elibiary asking for further explanation of how he hopes to “reform” conservative politics. He said he would not reply and accused the author of being part of “Islamophobia, Inc.”
Over the last year, the author communicated with Elibiary extensively and published a 37 page annotated interview with him. Among the takeaways are that Elibiary was 16 years old when he first befriended the CEO of the Holy Land Foundation, Shukri Abu Baker.
In 2011, counter-terrorism journalist Patrick Poole reported that Elibiary tried to leak confidential documents from the Texas Department of Public Safety that allegedly show evidence of “Islamophobia” in the government. He was said to have his access to a DHS database revoked as a result.
Elibiary told me that Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano exonerated him, but Poole said that he and his source were never contacted by DHS. He asks, “How could they have done an investigation with only one side being heard?”
Poole also broke the story that the Justice Department torpedoed forthcoming indictments of U.S. Muslim Brotherhood figures, specifically CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad and several leaders of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. He named Jamal Barzinji as one of them.
In my interview with him, Elibiary made two comments that may indicate he had a role in protecting the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood from prosecution and scrutiny.
He said, “I helped my community pick up the pieces and safeguards its nonprofit organizations, in order to protect its liberties, after the HLF’s [Holy Land Foundation’s] closure and eventual conviction.”
He said with confidence that the unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land trial would not be prosecuted. He stated, “As has been reported in multiple conservative media outlets over the past few years, the long-desired HLF 2.0 trial for the unindicted co-conspirators is no longer going to happen.”
Read more at Clarion Project
It’s hard to keep up with the news about Islam. One week, the focus is on Boko Haram, then it shifts to Hamas, and then to ISIS.
Every once in a while, it helps to step back and take a look at the big picture—that is, the big picture in regard to the Islamic resurgence. Not that there aren’t other big threats on the horizon—such as Russia, China, and North Korea—but let’s confine ourselves here to the Islamic threat.
That threat comes in two forms: armed jihad and stealth jihad. Since armed jihad is more conspicuous, it gets most of our attention. It’s difficult not to notice the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria or ISIS in Iraq, or the major terror attacks that occur once every year or so—the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the London bus and subway attack, the bombing of commuter trains in Madrid and Mumbai, and the mall massacre in Nairobi. In the back of our minds, we also know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and that Iran will soon acquire them (although some American bishops assure us that Iran has no such intention).
The balance of military power still favors the West—although it’s no longer clear whether Turkey, which has the second largest military in NATO, will come down on the side of the West or on the side of the Islamists. But military power can be offset by asymmetrical warfare—in other words, the type of warfare that terrorists favor. A small team of terrorists can incinerate the World Trade Center or paralyze Madrid or Mumbai, and there’s not much that F-16s or nuclear submarines can do about it.
Which is where that other form of jihad comes in. Stealth jihad, which, as the name implies, is the less noticeable type, can create a base for armed jihadists to ply their trade. Stealth jihad, in essence, is an attempt to turn a culture in an Islamic direction by infiltrating and influencing key institutions such as schools, courts, churches, media, government, and the entertainment industry. The “Trojan Horse” plot for taking over 10 schools in Birmingham, England is one example of stealth jihad; the national security establishment’s purging of training materials that cast a critical eye on Islam is another.
But, in order to do the long march through the institutions, you have to have enough bodies to do the marching. Thus, many critics look upon Muslim immigration into non-Muslim societies as a form of stealth jihad. For example, in their book Modern-Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Sam Solomon and Elias Al-Maqdisi describe Muslim immigration as, well, a “modern-day Trojan Horse.” They’re not saying that every single Muslim immigrant wants to subvert your local school, but rather that mass migration and Islamic conquest have been linked ever since Muhammad and his followers migrated from Mecca to Medina and commenced the takeover of Arabia.
Many places in Europe have changed almost beyond recognition due to the combination of mass immigration and high Muslim birth rates. And the political makeup of Europe is also changing. Since Muslims in Europe and the UK tend to vote as a bloc, politicians have begun catering to them, thus magnifying their influence. It’s widely thought, for instance, that the victory margin for French President Francois Hollande—a strong proponent of Muslim immigration—was provided by Muslim voters.
It used to be that anyone who talked about the Islamization of Europe was dismissed as an “alarmist.” But plenty of Europeans are talking about it now– including European Muslims who proudly march with signs proclaiming their intention to dominate Europe. Social-network researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have concluded that “when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakeable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.” France is already over 10 percent Muslim, and the majority of Frenchmen, like most Europeans, don’t seem to have any strong convictions about anything outside of an unshakeable belief in long vacations and early retirement.
In significant ways, stealth jihad paves the way for armed jihad. In its early stages, it can create localized environments where homegrown jihadists can grow and flourish. In its later stages? The ultimate aim of stealth jihad is to put the reins of power in the hands of Muslims. What if, as seems increasingly likely, France and England concede more and more political power to Islamists? Both countries are nuclear powers with advanced delivery systems. Given the rapid rate at which the old order of things is being turned upside down, it is not inconceivable that these weapons could someday fall into the hands of Islamic radicals.
Read more at Front Page