“Protocols of the Elders of …Islam”, Really?

512R2aJ0iLLFormer New York Times reporter David K. Shipler’s new book, “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” has a chapter called “Protocols of the Elders of Islam” in which he impugns the work of Stephen Coughlin on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding. You really have to hear this:

Frank Gaffney and Stephen Coughlin discuss on Secure Freedom Radio:

LISTEN: A leading national security advisor and Islamic law expert explains how and why America is losing to jihadists

Major Stephen Coughlin

Major Stephen Coughlin

The Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, April 13, 2015:

Major Stephen Coughlin (Ret.), a decorated intelligence officer known as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law has authored a forthcoming book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of the Jihad,” that serves as a damning indictment of America’s national security establishment in the face of the global jihad, and provides a chilling message to the American people.

We had the opportunity to discuss Coughlin’s new book in a wide-ranging interview that you can find below.

 

During our discussion, Coughlin goes into great depth on the thesis of his book, providing keen insights into the nature and doctrinal basis of the threat posed by Islamic supremacists, America’s conscious purging of the very lexicon necessary to describe the nature of the threat on its own terms, and as a result of postmodernism, political correctness and the pervasiveness of what Coughlin describes as culturally Marxist narratives — along with the gentle prodding of Muslim Brotherhood influences on our media and other core institutions — the ignorance, incoherence and willful blindness of America’s “stupid” national security establishment.

The end result that Coughlin sees is a completely compromised security situation in which America is able to win in military engagements, while completely losing — to the degree to which it is even fighting — on the ideological warfare battleground where the Muslim Brotherhood and its Western proxies devote a significant amount of their efforts.

This civilizational jihad effort, and Western ignorance of principles like jihad, abrogation and dawah, which Coughlin describes during our interview, evidences itself in everything from what Coughlin sees as the disastrous policy of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), to the Fort Hood shooting, to Iranian nuclear negotiations, which we examine through the lens of the 7th century Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

Below are several of the more critical portions of our interview, but for those concerned about the state of national security as it relates to the global jihad, we urge you to listen to the conversation in full.

The Three Words the National Security Establishment Won’t Use Essential to Understanding the Enemy

 

How the Muslim Brotherhood is Working Its Way Towards Civilizational Jihad in America

 

How CVE Supports the Postmodernist Narrative, and Deems Veterans Returning from War a Threat

 

The Derelection of Duty of America’s National Security Establishment

 

How Ignorance of Islam Deceives Our National Security Leaders to Our Detriment

 

What a 7th Century Treaty Tells Us About the Iran Nuclear “Deal”

 

How Left Wing Narratives Have Created a “Stupid” National Security Establishment and Aided the Jihad

These five potentially banned pages tell you everything you need to know about the disastrous state of America’s national security

The Blaze:

Major Stephen Coughlin, an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and the man known as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law has been warning America for years about our inability or unwillingness to know, let alone define our enemy, and the disastrous consequences we will face as a result.

Catastrophic-Failure-ShrunkIn spite of his groundbreaking work for the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center, the National Military Joint Intelligence Center, the National Security Council’s Interagency Perception Management Threat Panel and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intelligence Directorate, along with lectures at practically all of America’s leading national security institutions, by his own admission Coughlin’s work is no longer welcomed in much of Washington D.C.

Fearing such censorship, he has decided to bring his critical work to the public, in the form of a forthcoming book titled ”Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.”

Below is a Blaze exclusive excerpt from “Catastrophic Failure,” illustrating the dire state of America’s national security and what the country can and must understand to effectively counter our enemies.

Introduction

What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, our army and our navy. These are not our reliance against tyranny. All of those may be turned against us without making us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.

Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, Illinois

September 13, 1858

Why Me?

I did not set out in life to be a student of jihad and Islamic-based terrorism. In the fall of 2001, I was a reserve officer in the United States Army, called to active duty from the private sector due to the events of September 11.

My posting was to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intelligence Directorate (JS-J2). As I watched America respond to events across the world, I noticed with alarm that decisionmaking seemed to be increasingly less focused on the threat as it presented itself and more on the narratives that reduced the threat to a nameless abstraction.

As a mobilized officer brought into the heart of the strategic intelligence world, I knew there would be a large learning curve involved in formulating the threat doctrine of an enemy that had brought down the Twin Towers in the name of Islam and according to Islamic law.

I made a point of going to the source. I found actual books of Islamic law. I read them and found they could be mapped, with repeatable precision, to the stated doctrines and information that groups like al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood disclosed about themselves and used when speaking to each other. My analysis helped me develop a threat doctrine, an understanding of the enemy as he understands himself unconstrained by the influences of the environment – Sun Tzu’s “Know your enemy.” That threat analysis was in line with all the standard doctrines on threat development I had been taught when I learned to do intelligence analysis. Because the declared enemy stated that his fighting doctrine was based on the Islamic law of jihad, Islamic law had to be incorporated into any competent threat analysis. When assessing al-Qaeda in light of the jihad doctrines that the group’s members actually cite, I came to realize that such doctrines did exist, they are generally cited properly, and that al-Qaeda made plausible claims to be actually following those doctrines. In legal parlance, al-Qaeda’s claims to be operating in accordance with mainstream Islamic law could at least survive summary judgment. By the same token, any analysis of al-Qaeda that failed to account for such a self-disclosed component of an identified threat doctrine could not be competent. I assumed everyone with whom I worked in the intelligence directorate was aware of the most basic aspects of intelligence, such as threat identification.

I was wrong. I had entered the Intelligence Directorate adhering to the traditional methods of analysis. Soon, however, I discovered that within the division there seemed to be a preference for political correctness over accuracy and for models that were generated not by what the enemy said he was, but on what academics and “cultural advisors” said the enemy needed to be, based on contrived social science theories.

It seemed the enemy was aware of this as well. Forces hostile to the United States in the War on Terror appeared to have successfully calculated that they could win the war by convincing our national security leaders of the immorality of studying and knowing the enemy. It is not our fault that the threat we face identifies its doctrine along Islamic lines, but it is our fault that we refuse to look at that doctrine simply because our enemy wishes to blind us to its strategic design.

Some time ago, I had an opportunity to analyze the Muslim Brotherhood in North America’s strategic documents, which were entered into evidence in a federal terrorism trial. In those documents, the Muslim Brotherhood explicitly states its designs for “civilization-jihad” and its intent to sabotage America by getting us to do the job for them. This doctrine of subversion could likewise be mapped to mainstream Islamic law. Individuals and organizations named in the Brotherhood’s documents were shown in the government’s investigative files, surveillance photos, audio recordings, and wiretaps to have been aligned with or members of the Muslim Brotherhood. But while the government was identifying many of these people and entities as providing material support to terrorism in a federal court, it was also seeking out those same people as cultural experts, “moderates,” and community outreach partners.

As early as 2003, I began putting together briefings that easily outperformed competing explanations for the enemy’s doctrinal motivations. My briefings have always spoken to verifiable and authoritative facts. Others, however, were based on social science modeling and depended on dubious academic constructs—which, of course, were needed to satisfy the overriding requirement that we avoid associating the war we were fighting with the very Islamic concepts that the enemy self identified as the justification and basis for their actions.

Before demobilizing from the Joint Staff in 2004, I wrote a forecast of adverse events that would occur because of our refusal to undertake evidentiary threat analysis. Eighteen months later, while standing on a Metro platform in downtown Washington, D.C., I happened to run into the senior civilian in the Joint Staff Intelligence Directorate, retired Marine Corps Colonel David Kiffer. He told me he was impressed by my briefs, particularly by how the presentations accurately frame emerging events to that day.

When asked how I could identify emerging threats with such precision, I explained that there is no crystal ball. It’s just that al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others have knowable threat doctrines. Forecasting is as simple as mapping their stated objectives to the doctrines they follow in conjunction with their known capabilities. At the core of those doctrines, of course, was Islamic law.

As a retired Marine Corps officer, the senior civilian intelligence officer understood my concern for the lack of basic analysis. He asked me to come to the Pentagon and brief the Flag and General officers on the J2 Staff. I accepted the offer but insisted that I be able to present what I believed to be the central problem in the War on Terror. He agreed, so I put a briefing together and spoke at the Pentagon around Christmastime in 2005. The briefing culminated in a slide that raised two central questions:

Can overdependence on “moderates” to explain non-Western motivations and beliefs lead us to (overly) depend on them for the decisions we make?

Is there a point where the outsourcing of an understanding of events leads to the outsourcing of the decisionmaking associated with those events?

Underlying both questions was my concern that decisions central to the warfighting effort are based solely on the inputs of experts on subjects that the decisionmakers themselves do not understand. When such a practice becomes chronic, actual decisionmaking shifts from those responsible for making decisions to the experts they rely on for information. It is a subversion of both the decisionmaking and the warfighting processes.

At the Pentagon, after I had expressed my opinion on these issues directly, I was asked to join the Intelligence Directorate as a full-time consultant. Since then, while I repackaged my presentations and restated them in many ways with greater demonstrated foreseeability, the central issue has remained the same: Senior leaders remain profoundly unaware of the Islamic doctrines that frame the War on Terror. Tragically, not knowing these doctrines kills Americans and undermines our security.

Read more at The Blaze

National Security Expert: U.S. Foreign Policy Leaders ‘Have Lost The Ability To Think’

coughlinDaily Caller, Ginni Thomas, Feb. 22, 2015: (video at Daily Caller)

From his time briefing generals in the Pentagon, Stephen Coughlin — a leading expert on national security and author of the soon-to-be-published book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” — has always feared for our nation’s safety and thinks it’s time for the government to stop lying.

Coughlin is an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and expert on Islamic law and terrorism. He says the “entire world, friend and foe alike, understands, that starting with the Bush administration and accelerating in the Obama administration, that our foreign policy community is absolutely incoherent and completely vulnerable. These people have lost the ability to think.”

He contends that government bureaucrats have become so focused on fighting “narratives” consistent with a post-modern, politically correct worldview, rather than the facts on the ground, that America’s war on terrorism has become a catastrophic failure.

Rather than be tethered to the professional canon requiring a “duty to be competent” and know the enemy, or their oath to support and defend the nation from enemies foreign and domestic, Coughlin argues the military has been persuaded, cajoled and perverted into fighting based on narratives.

“This country is in serious trouble,” he believes. “The people who hate us — and it’s not just radical Islam, it’s the Chinese, it’s the Russians, it’s the Iranians — they know that our leaders don’t know what they’re doing, because they’ve been kicking the tires.”

In this exclusive video interview with The Daily Caller, Coughlin says our allies in the war of terror “watched us change sides” in 2010 and 2011, but “the scariest thing” to him “is that our senior national security leaders seem to have no comprehension that they did.”

As for President Obama’s Summit this week, Coughlin sees the touted euphemism as an example of his point, and declares, “When you are fighting ‘violent extremism,’ you are not defending this country. You are bringing it down.”

His greatest fear is that “we may be put to sleep, like the frog that boils to death, mired in the pollution of our own politically correct narratives that has created a complete inability for us to understand and further the truth, so much so, that we have to treat the truth as propaganda just to be heard.”

Discussing the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, Coughlin says this is a clear example that when you commit to a narrative, you can suppress the truth and undermine our national security. He says Hasan told us “at the Walter Reed and the Pentagon, over 20 times” to military officers that, “I am a Muslim. If you send me to war, I will become a jihadi.”

Coughlin describes the efforts by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to work with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an international organization with 57 Member States (56 countries and the Palestinian Territories) concerning their 10 Year Programme of Action to make defaming Islam a punishable crime.

The UN Human Rights Commission passed UN Resolution 1618, to implement OIC’s 10 year plan. If it becomes law, “it would have the effect of subordinating our first amendment to Islamic slander laws,” Coughlin says. He discusses a meeting then-Secretary Clinton had on July 15, 2011 in Turkey where Clinton promised to use the government’s “best efforts to pass 16/18, and would resort to peer pressure and shaming against Americans who might violate that standard.”

The security expert claims this would result in an “extra-legal means to attack Americans for exercising their free speech rights inside America if they say something that the OIC deems insulting.”

To Coughlin, this is a layered strategy that calls for the dots to be connected by astute citizens. There is Islamic slander law, the OIC’s Ten Year Programme of Action and UN Resolution 16/18. Now, alongside Resolution 16/18 at the UN, is a new supporting effort to redefine “incitement” in international treaties to which the U.S. is a party to achieve their controversial objectives.

Coughlin’s hope is that more citizens should confidently and strongly ask, why is our government lying to us.

Major Stephen Coughlin on Abrogation

koranpuinGates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, Feb. 11, 2015:

The Center for Security Policy hosted a Defeat Jihad Summit in Washington D.C. today. Among the speakers were Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Representatives Steven King and Mike Pompeo, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard, and Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin.

The video below shows Maj. Coughlin’s brief but comprehensive explanation of the Doctrine of Abrogation as practiced in Islamic law. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for excerpting this clip:

Coughlin on abrogation

 

Watch the full six-hour video here.

The more lengthy explanation of abrogation below is adapted from previous briefings by Maj. Coughlin. As always, his material is scrupulously sourced.

The Doctrine of Abrogation

At the very pinnacle of Islamic law is the Koran, which is the uncreated word of God as revealed through his prophet. Every word in the Koran comes from God himself, and is inerrant. Yet the Koran sometimes contradicts itself. These seemingly intractable differences are reconciled through the doctrine of “abrogation”.

So what is abrogation?

This is what Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee has to say about abrogation in Islamic Jurisprudence:[1]

The law was laid down in the period of the Prophet (peace be unto him) gradually and in stages. The aim was to bring a society steeped in immorality to observe the highest standards of morality. This could not be done abruptly. It was done in stages, and doing so necessitated repeal and abrogation of certain laws.

As you can see, Nyazee acknowledges that the Koran contradicts itself. Upon discovering this fact, someone who knows very little about Islam might say, “The Koran contradicts itself. Doesn’t this mean it’s broken?” But it is well understood in Islam that the Koran contradicts itself. This fact is explained, and taken into account. There are methods for dealing with it.

This becomes significant when non-Muslims approach a Muslim cultural expert or “moderate” to ask about certain verses of the Koran that are cited by radicals to justify their violent jihad. The cultural expert or “moderate” will respond with something like this: “You (infidel) must read from the entire body of the Koran to understand the true meaning. Those radicals cherry-pick from the back of the Koran.”

With this reply the cultural expert gives the impression that he does not agree with the radicals, but he never actually says that what they cherry-pick is wrong.

So what is the Koranic basis for the doctrine of abrogation?

It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages. (Qur’an 17:106)

Concerning this verse, the Qur’an commentator Yusuf Ali says:[2]

The marvel is that these parts, revealed at different times and in different circumstances, should fit together so closely and consistently as they do. All revelation is progressive. The previous revelations were also progressive. Each of them marked a stage in the world’s spiritual history. Man’s mind does not take in more than his spiritual state will have prepared him for. Allah’s revelation comes as a light to illuminate our difficulties and show us the way in actual situations that arise.

Here’s another verse covering the same subject:

When We substitute one revelation for another – and Allah knows best what He reveals in stages — They say, “Thou art but a forger”: But most of them understand not. (Qur’an 16:101)

And once again, a comment by Yusuf Ali:[3]

The doctrine of progressive revelation from age to age and time to time does not mean that Allah’s fundamental Law changes. It is not fair to charge a Prophet of Allah with forgery because the Message, as revealed to him, is in a different form from that revealed before, when the core of the Truth is the same, for it comes from Allah.

The final Koranic verse on progressive revelation:

None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things? (Qur’an 2:106)

Thus we have three different citations from the Koran in which Allah says he reveals things in stages, and that with each stage he abrogates the previous stages. We would expect — because it is the uncreated word of Allah — that what was said later would overrule what was said earlier. And any Islamic law which did not reflect this fact would be suspect.

That means that if the radicals are cherry-picking chronologically from the back of the Koran,they are correct.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Anyone who looks at the entire body of the Koran to get its true meaning is actually not oriented on the legal parts, because it is weighted, just as our legal system is weighted to recognize the most recent precedent.

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee has this to say on the principle of naskh:[4]

The literal meaning of naskh is canceling or transferring. In its technical sense it is used to mean the “lifting (raf’) of a legal rule through a legal evidence of a later date.” The abrogating text or evidence is called nasikh, while the repealed rule is called themansukh.

In Outlines of Muhammadan Law, Asaf A.A. Fyzee remarks:[5]

The Koran according to this theory is the first source of law. … It is for this reason that the verse of the Koran (ayat), although only a few of them deal specifically with legal questions, are held to be of paramount authority. In interpreting the Koranic verses, one important principle has to be observed. Some verses are deemed to be the abrogating (nasikh) verses and some to be the abrogated (mansukh) ones. Generally speaking the earlier verses are deemed to be repealed by the later ones.

Thus, because the later Koranic verses are always considered to be the valid and binding points of Islamic law, it becomes important to arrange the Koran chronologically. When the Koran is arranged that way, it is divided into the early, middle, and late Meccan periods, and the Medina period. Surah 2 is generally understood to be the first surah of the Medina period. Surah 9 is the penultimate surah of the Koran, and 5 is the last surah of the Koran. However, there is some disagreement among scholars about the ordering, and different orderings exist. Some authorities name 110 as the final surah, rather than 5, and some say 9 is the last.

What is important in this context is the general agreement that Surah 9 is the last to talk about jihad, 5 is the last to talk about relations with non-Muslims, and 3 is understood to come after 2. All four schools of Sunni Islamic are in general agreement on abrogating/abrogated texts, and on the major issues they are in general agreement.[6] 75% of Sunni Islamic law is recognized in common across all four schools.

So a Muslim jurist does not read Islamic law and decide what is or is not abrogated. These issues have already been decided. If you are a Hanbali, or Hanafi, or Shafite, or Maliki Islamic scholar, you will refer to your school’s books on abrogated texts. No one can become a judge unless he knows them by heart.

How are the surahs in the Koran arranged? When you open the Koran, you see Surah 1, which is very brief, and serves as an introduction. Next comes Surah 2, which is the largest surah in the Koran, about 150 pages long. Surah 3 is the second largest, Surah 4 is the third largest, and so on. It becomes obvious that when the scholars constructed the Koran, they put the introductory surah first, but after that the Koran was ordered by the size of the surahs, from the largest to the smallest chapter. It is not arranged chronologically.

When you look at the entire body of the Koran, the Meccan period seems much bigger than the Medinan period. But surahs 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 — all from the Medinan period — comprise about 80% of the Koran, while surahs 109, 112, 113, and 114 — from the Meccan period — occupy less than entire pages. In other words, the number of a surah does not refer to its order in the chronology, but to its size.

Islamic law is entirely derived from the Medinan period. Anything said during the Medinan period overrules anything on the same subject that was said in the Meccan periods. And anything said in the later part of the Medinan period overrules anything said in the earlier part.

Whenever a “moderate” finally concedes that there is such a thing as jihad, he will quote Surah 2 (with some support from Surah 8), because the first jihad was mentioned in Surah 2, and can reasonably be expected to be defensive jihad. But remember: the last surah that talks about jihad is Surah 9.

So how does this affect our understanding of Islam?

Surah 2 says:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold. (Qur’an 2:256)

Virtually any Westerner who knows anything about Islam has heard this. But what most people have not heard is this:

Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him, and he will be of those who have truly failed in the hereafter (Qur’an 3:85)

Furthermore:

Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust. (Qur’an 5:51)

So who are the unjust, besides the Christians and Jews? The Muslims who take Christians and Jews as friends.

As you can see from the chart, Surah 2 is abrogated by Surah 3, which is abrogated by Surah 5. This means that 5:51 is the final word on how a pious Muslim must regard Christians and Jews.

Notes:

1. Imran Asham Khan Nyazee, Islamic Jurisprudence, (Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2003), 319.
2. Yusuf Ali, Qur’an, Comment 2317.
3. Yusuf Ali, Qur’an, Comment 2140.
4. Nyazee, Jurisprudence, 318.
5. Asaf A. A. Fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law, 4th ed. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1974), at 19-20.
6. Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, vii.

Shariah Threat Analysis: The establishment of a ‘Caliphate’

article-2674736-1F32496300000578-276_634x356Published on Jul 4, 2014 by  securefreedom:

The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has announced a new caliphate and formally declared the creation of an Islamic state in the territory under its control. Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin lays out the theological basis ISIS uses to justify the establishment of a Caliphate.

Stephen Coughlin and Frank Gaffney on Islamic subversion of the US government

 

download (83)Available at Amazon: An Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America (Center for Security Policy Archival Series)

In August of 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver was Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in Chicago in connection with fundraising for Hamas.The FBI’s Washington Field Office subsequently executed a search warrant on Elbarasse’s residence in Annandale, Virginia. In the basement of his home, a hidden sub-basement was found; it revealed over 80 banker boxes of the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. One of the most important of these documents made public to date was entered into evidence during the Holy Land Foundation trial. It amounted to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States and was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” The Explanatory Memorandum was written in 1991 by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram. It had been approved by the Brotherhood’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference and was meant for internal review by the Brothers’ leadership in Egypt. It was certainly not intended for public consumption, particularly in the targeted society: the United States. For these reasons, the memo constitutes a Rosetta stone for the Muslim Brotherhood, its goals, modus operandi and infrastructure in America. It is arguably the single most important vehicle for understanding a secretive organization and should, therefore, be considered required reading for policy-makers and the public, alike.

**************

Also see Citizens for National Security (CFNS) key report: “Homegrown Jihad in the USA – Muslim Brotherhood’s Deliberate, Premeditated Plan Now Reaching Maturity©”

The Doctrine of Abrogation

1-1-quranarabic1by :

In the comments on Geert Wilders’ open letter to Pope Francis, a reader named MH indicated that he was unfamiliar with — or was pretending to be unfamiliar with — the Islamic doctrine of abrogation as it applies to contradictory verses within the Koran.

In a nutshell, any earlier verse of the Koran is considered “abrogated” if a later verse contradicts it. The chronology of the suras of the Koran has been well-established by a consensus of Islamic scholars, so an observant Muslim can be in no doubt as to whether any particular verse of the Koran is binding upon him under Islamic law.

Retired U.S. Army Major Stephen Coughlin is one of the foremost experts on Islamic law in the Western world. Several years ago I had the privilege of helping with the editing of material that Steve was putting together, including the following section on the Koranic basis for the doctrine of abrogation. The text below is reproduced with his permission.

The Doctrine of Abrogation
By Maj. Stephen Coughlin

At the very pinnacle of Islamic law is the Koran, which is the uncreated word of God as revealed through his Prophet.

So what is abrogation?

This is what Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee has to say about abrogation in Islamic Jurisprudence:[1]

The law was laid down in the period of the Prophet (peace be unto him) gradually and in stages. The aim was to bring a society steeped in immorality to observe the highest standards of morality. This could not be done abruptly. It was done in stages, and doing so necessitated repeal and abrogation of certain laws.

As you can see, Nyazee acknowledges that the Koran contradicts itself. Upon discovering this fact, someone who knows little about Islam might say, “The Koran contradicts itself. Doesn’t this mean it’s broken?” But anyone who takes the time to look into the scholarship will learn that is well understood in Islam that the Koran contradicts itself. This fact is explained, and taken into account. There are methods for dealing with it.

This becomes significant when non-Muslims approach a Muslim cultural expert or “moderate” to ask about certain verses of the Koran that are cited by radicals to justify their violent jihad. The cultural expert or “moderate” will respond with something like this: “You (infidel) must read from the entire body of the Koran to understand the true meaning. Those radicals cherry-pick from the back of the Koran.”

With this reply the cultural expert gives the impression that he does not agree with the radicals, but he never actually says that what they cherry-pick is wrong.

So what is the Koranic basis for the doctrine of abrogation?

It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages. (Qur’an 17:106)

Concerning this verse, the Qur’an commentator Yusuf Ali says:[2]

The marvel is that these parts, revealed at different times and in different circumstances, should fit together so closely and consistently as they do. All revelation is progressive. The previous revelations were also progressive. Each of them marked a stage in the world’s spiritual history. Man’s mind does not take in more than his spiritual state will have prepared him for. Allah’s revelation comes as a light to illuminate our difficulties and show us the way in actual situations that arise.

I sometimes run into very committed Christians who say, “We have progressive revelation in Christianity, too.” And my answer is: “There’s a pillar, go run your head into it!” When talking about Islamic concepts of progressive revelation, it is totally unprofessional to refer to Christian notions of progressive revelation.

Read more at Gates of Vienna

 

See also:

 

 

 

Downfall coming through coalition of Islamists and Marxists?

images (25)By Anita Crane:

A noted specialist on Islamic law and ideology from the Center for Security Policy, who has been cited as an expert for the Pentagon, says a coalition of Islamists and Marxists is working to destroy the United States.

The comments come from Stephen Coughlin, a lecturer for leading Department of Defense institutions such as the Naval War College, Marine Corps HQ-Quantico and for the FBI. Coughlin is a retired major in the U.S. Army reserves and was assigned to USCENTCOM, with a military intelligence specialty.

His assignments included the Pentagon’s National Military Joint Intelligence Center, the National Security Council’s Interagency Perception Management Threat Panel and the intelligence staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so he has the credentials required for such assessments.

He recently addressed the Northern Virginia Chapter of ACT! for America, where he quoted terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who said, “Only a coalition of Islamists and Marxists can destroy the United States.” Thus, Coughlin said, “If we’re going to get a grip on this, we have to know their narrative and understand it. We know that when the other side has language that’s locked into doctrine, we need to hold them to it.”

He said, too, that the “lone wolf” jihadists can inflict damage.

He cited the case of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, killed during a confrontation with police.

Tsarnaev reportedly sent a text message to his mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, saying he was “ready to die for Islam.” ABC News Radio reported that his surviving brother and fellow suspect told investigators both “were ready to die.” According to The Christian Post, “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev indicated that his older brother hated America and Christianity, especially for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Al-Qaida is one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s many branches and it preaches that individual Muslims should act as lone jihadists, lone terrorists. Therefore, after the bombings in Boston, after the two Muslim Tsarnaev brothers were named as the primary suspects, Coughlin made an in-depth video on the Muslim Brotherhood’s narrative on this subject.

In it, he says, “A couple years ago, in June 2010, I was asked to brief a couple members of Congress about what this concept of the ‘lone wolf’ was. It’s the first time I brought the fact that what the FBI and DHS call ‘lone wolf’ is actually a formal part of jihad.”

In the video, Coughlin also highlights the cold calculation of al-Qaida’s leaders telling their followers who to murder and where to murder them.

And there are some surprising details. For example, he said al-Qaida urges against killing Jews in their synagogues. Coughlin believes that’s because it’s bad publicity that damages the Muslim Brotherhood’s deceptive “interfaith” dialogues with Christians and Jews.

He quotes an article from the al-Qaida magazine “Inspire,” which says: “The confrontation with America is fundamental, while the confrontation with Europe is secondary, aimed at making Europe lead the alliance by putting pressure on her.”

His presentation follows:

 

The U.S. government has known of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of defeating the U.S. since 2004, when federal investigators raided a terrorist’s home in Virginia and found “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

Read more at WND

 

See also:

Stephen Coughlin: The Boston Attack and Doctrines of “Individual Jihad”

jihad

Center For Security Policy:

In this video lecture, Center for Security Policy senior fellow Stephen Coughlin explains doctrinal and historical background for the recent jihadist attack in Boston. Beginning with media reports willfully confused about the motivations of the Chechen Mulsim Tsarnaev brothers, Coughlin deconstructs the lineage of the ‘individual jihad’ vs ‘jihad by bands’ or secret, foreign-controlled cells.

 

Key Points:

1. The government and media’s ‘reality dislocation’ in false narratives for Boston jihadists’ motivations.

Political or ideological considerations are promoted ahead of actual analysis. Placing motivation on idiosyncratic psychological factors constitutes a lack of understanding that, at some point, could be understood as a campaign of  disinformation.

2. In one of the final pronouncements of the Ottoman Caliphate during WWI, the concept of “individual jihad” was outlined alongside other types of jihad.

The statement included a  Koranic proof putting “individual jihad” into context. The major schools of Islamic law agree that a “call to jihad” is binding, especially when issued from the seat of the Caliph. Another type of jihad described by the statement is “jihad by bands” (also known as brigands); “the most profitable of [jihad by bands] is that which makes the use of ‘secret formations’”– otherwise known today as terrorist cells.

3. Any analysis of the Boston bombing– especially considering the use of pressure cooker bombs– should have began with an awareness of al Qaeda’s 2010 change in strategy.

In it’s first edition of the English-language Inspire Magazine, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula outlined its change of strategy in its conflict with the West: it would move from an emphasis on ‘secret formations/organizations’ and ‘overt fronts and open confrontation’ to “individual jihad,” known as “lone-wolf terrorism.”

4. “How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom.”

Inspire Magazine included a recipe for pressure cooker bombs in its first edition and, crucially, reprised that article in its most recent edition on “the Lone Mujahid” (the individual jihadist). Interestingly, the issue– which was released in Spring 2013, just in advance of the Boston attack– featured a photograph of Times Square on its cover. Note the next target of the Tsarnaev brothers was reported to be Times Square.

5. Convergence of al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood stages.

The inaugural edition of Inspire Magazine included a notice to da’wah-oriented Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood; the message was that events on the ground in the Muslim world were primed for proceeding from ‘Mecca’ stage to the ‘Media’ stage, as according to the Milestones Process and the concept of Abrogation in Islamic law. Essentially, it is a call to go to war. In late 2010, the Muslim Brotherhood reoriented itself under new leadership and seemed to embrace the transition to the more militant phase, also putting emphasis on “individual acts of sacrifice” or jihad/martyrdom operations.[For more analysis of the Islamist convergence, see ‘Part 4: The Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the Milestones Process‘]

6. The winter 2012 issue of Inspire Magazine outlines what is meant by ‘Individual jihad’– with consideration to attacking large sporting events, of which the Boston Marathon was certainly one.

Inspire point out, also, that the lone jihadist should avoid killing foreigners from countries with which the Islamic ummah is not at war. In line with that guidance, the Tsarnaev brothers waited until most foreign nationals had finished the race and set off the bombs during the time when average Americans, for the most part, were in the blast radius.

7. What al Qaeda Really Wants, circa 2005.

Investigative reporting in Der Spiegel with remarkable access to and insight from al Qaeda strategists points to AQ goals and– surprisingly– how closely their milestones have been met. The “Fourth Phase” predicts the collapse of the relatively secular Arabic governments (in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, etc), to be followed by the overthrow of the kingdoms. The Fifth Phase describes the rise of the Caliphate and the Sixth is “total confrontation” with the west. For a group that the Obama administration calls, “on the ropes,” they are well into their multi-phase plan.

8. “Against them Make Ready” and Convergence.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto as a da’wah organization, taken from the first words of Koran 8:60, is “Against them make ready.” The following phrase– “…and prepare against them to the utmost of your power” appears on the cover of the Spring 2013 Inspire Magazine special Lone Mujahid Pocketbook. Also in the same issue, al Qaeda re-published the pressure cooker bomb recipe. (Did they have any operational awareness?)

9. The Explanatory Memorandum’s “Process of Settlement.”

Analyzing the Muslim Brotherhood in America’s strategic document, as entered into evidence in America’s largest terrorism funding trial, US vs. Holy Land Foundation. From the Memorandum: “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ihkwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood defines “settlement” as “a jihadist process.”

10. “Islamic Center of…” / Islamic Society of…”

Both phrases can be seen as “brands” indicating involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood at the leadership or foundational level. The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to describe how “The Islamic Center in every city… achieves the goal of the Process of Settlement” [defined earlier as a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’]: “The Islamic Center [is] in action not in words.. a seed ‘for a small Islamic society’ which is a reflection and a mirror to our central organizations.” In other words, Muslim Brotherhood-established and administered mosques in the United States should be assessed according to this mission. This is especially true for mosques with strong ties to MB entities like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), both unindicted co-consprirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

11. The Islamic Centers’ mission is to “supply our battalions.”

The Explanatory Memorandum further defines the goals and strategic uses for its Islamic Centers: it “should be the same as the mosque’s role during the time of God’s prophet… when he marched to ‘settle’ the Da’wah in its first generation in Medina, from the mosque…” This makes clear the Muslim Brotherhood’s future vision; in the first generation of Islam, Mohammed used mosques in the Medina period as staging areas for attacks on non-Muslim tribes in Arabia. The military implications of this phrase are clear and important to understand.

12. “Islamic Society of…” Boston.

Founded by Abdulrahman Alamoudi, a long-time Muslim Brother who was convicted of attempted murder of a foreign dignitary with al Qaeda involvement. Similarly, Anwar al Awlaki was a popular and powerful voice of “moderate Islam” before revealing himself as the head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The lesson is, when dealing with Muslim Brotherhood, there are no sharp dividing lines between the that and more well-known “militant jihadist” groups.

13. The Purge of Counterterror Training.

About Stephen Coughlin

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe. Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had an demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen. He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

 

Also see:

Video: Stephen Coughlin exposes the Saul Alinsky underpinnings of Interfaith Outreach

Robert Spencer interviews Stephen Coughlin on the subversive nature of the Interfaith Movement which is making use of Saul Alinsky tactics.

“One of the things Alinsky’s goal was to do is to take terms, sacred terms, sacred ideas, patriotic and religious, and redefine them without telling people …”

 

577106_406984566035385_1091298055_nStephen Coughlin is a senior fellow at the Center For Security Policy. An attorney, decorated intelligence officer and noted specialist on Islamic law, ideology and related strategic information programs, Mr. Coughlin integrates experience in international law, intelligence, strategic communications and high-level project management in both the national defense and private sectors to develop unique perspectives, assessments and training packages relating to the intersection of national security and law. Often cited as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law, Coughlin is in demand as a lecturer at leading Defense training institutions, including the Naval War College, Marine Corps HQ-Quantico, and at Staff, Command and Division levels, as well as for the FBI and other agencies and private sector groups.  A Major in the United States Army (res.), assigned to USCENTCOM, with a military intelligence specialty, Coughlin has served in a strategic communications role in CENTCOM-Doha. U.S. assignments have included attachment to the Pentagon’s National Military Joint Intelligence Center, the National Security Council’s Interagency Perception Management Threat Panel, and culminating in his assignment to the intelligence staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Coughlin’s private sector career has focused on international law, competitive intelligence and the development and provision of open source, classified and proprietary commercial data and information products and programs at leading publishing houses such as Lexis-Nexis/Reed Elsevier and West Group/WestLaw.

Video: Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to present a  panel discussion with three of America’s top experts on the shariah doctrinal threat to national security. Dr. Andrew Bostom, Diana West and Stephen Coughlin will be joined by Frank Gaffney to discuss, “Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine.”

Featuring nationally-recognized experts and authors:

* Dr. Andrew G. Bostom – author of Sharia versus Freedom (Prometheus Books, October 2012). Dr. Bostom’s earlier publications include The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History and The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. He posts regularly at http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog

* Diana West – author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character (St. Martin’s Press, April 2013). Ms. West’s earlier publications include The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization and Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II). She posts regularly at http://dianawest.net

* Stephen Coughlin – author of Catastrophic Failure: The Big Lie in the War on Terror (Center for Security Policy Press, January 2013).   Mr. Coughlin’s earlier publications include Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II) , and “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.” His popular series of educational video lectures on Shariah doctrine can be viewed on YouTube.

* Moderator: Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy

LIVE-STREAM TUESDAY: Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Center for Security Policy | Nov 10, 2012

At 12:30PM on Tuesday, November 13 at Hillsdale College in Washington, DC, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present a live-streamed panel discussion with three of America’s top experts on the shariah doctrinal threat to national security. Dr. Andrew Bostom, Diana West and Stephen Coughlin will be joined by Frank Gaffney to discuss, “Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine.”

The event will be streamed live, beginning at 12:30PM at the Center’s YouTube channel, youtube.com/securefreedom, embedded on this page or on Facebook at facebook.com/securefreedom.

 The Center for Security Policy presents a panel discussion

Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Featuring nationally-recognized experts and authors:

  • Moderator: Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy

Infiltration, Treason, Jihad – Welcome to The Project

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton:

The Blaze aired a special last week in two parts called The Project. Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here.

As I have contended from the very beginning, Obama and his minions are corrupt beyond belief. It is my belief that Obama is actively facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islam in an effort to bring America to her knees and usher in not only Sharia law, but a worldwide caliphate. This week, I am going to summarize for you the content of The Project and what it means to Americans. Time is growing short, we are entering the third and final phase of a very, very evil plan.

In 2001, an Islamic manifesto called The Project was discovered in Switzerland. This document is a plan to carry out a quiet coup within the United States through indoctrination, subversion and infiltration at all levels of our government and through key positions in education and other influential positions such as the media. Fast forward to 2008 and the Holyland Foundation Trial. This showcased the largest terror financing trial in US history. There are 80 boxes of evidence, including The Project, that have been made available by our government to the accused enemies of America, but which, to this day, are being withheld from our leaders and the American people. Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano cite national security, but have given the terrorists a free pass to review the documents. I contend, that if they haven’t already done so, that Obama and his colleagues will destroy those documents because they implicate Obama and his administration in outright treason by aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood. If Obama loses this election, he will most likely do two things: 1) He will release the Blind Sheik and 2) he will have those 80 boxes of documents destroyed if he hasn’t done so already. Obama will remain faithful to his Muslim roots and his anti-colonialist leanings. Remember Obama’s words:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Radical Islamists have waged a silent propaganda and indoctrination war here in the US for many years and they have been winning over the hearts, minds and souls of many. They now are trying to basically do away with our First Amendment rights by criminalizing any form of speech that is deemed offensive to Islam. They have put themselves in place in our government and managed to purge all government documentation and libraries of any reference that criticizes Islam or that they find objectionable – i.e. blasphemy. They have even gotten into school textbooks glorifying Islam and rewriting our history in their favor. Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Islamic gang, are working towards United Nations Resolution 16/18 which prohibits “discrimination based on religion or belief.” That is an anti-blasphemy resolution and if passed by our senate, the end of the First Amendment.

From Diana West:

Here’s the secret that blasphemy laws are written to smother: Regarding the fundamentals of freedom of conscience, the autonomy of the individual, protection of children and equality of women, Islamic and Western doctrines have nothing in common and are, in fact, at irreconcilable, dagger’s-point odds. Silence – Shariah blasphemy laws – is the Obama-Clinton-OIC Islamic answer. Indeed, in the Shariah-compliant end, silence will replace the questions, too.

But we’re already used to it. Don’t believe me? Afshin Ellian, an Iranian-born Dutch law professor, poet and columnist, puts it this way: “If you cannot say that Islam is a backward religion and that Muhammad is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there you also cannot say such things. I may say Christ was a homosexual and Mary was a prostitute, but apparently I should stay off of Muhammad.”

Obama has thrown the doors of our hallowed halls open to the Muslim Brotherhood. He meets with them every chance he gets, while snubbing Netanyahu and Israel – buying time for Iran to wipe them from the face of the earth with a nuke or 12. Our elected officials demanded a halt to the 1 billion slated for Egypt and funding for Libya after our embassies and consulates were attacked and an ambassador and others were murdered. Even after this horrendous event, where Obama, Rice and Clinton all lied about the cause of the terrorism, Obama turned around and is attempting to give $450 million to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and another $50+ million to Syrian rebels. So far, a few brave individuals in the House and Senate have stopped this, but I expect Obama to circumvent their efforts and send the money to our enemies anyway. It’s for his homies, don’t ya know.

The infiltration into America is on a par with Communism’s and in fact, they have linked forces to overthrow us from within. The Progressives and the Jihadists are working together to transform America. Each believes that in the end they will win and then get rid of the other. But that is after they have destroyed our Constitutional Republic. This is a war we could lose without ever being attacked – ravaged by the enemies within.

From The Blaze, here is a section of The Project:

This report presents a global vision of a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy [or “political Islam”]. Local Islamic policies will be drawn up in the different regions in accordance with its guidelines. It acts, first of all, to define the points of departure of that policy, then to set up the components and the most important procedures linked to each point of departure; finally we suggest several missions, by way of example only, may Allah protect us.

The following are the principal points of departure of this policy:

Point of Departure 1: To know the terrain and adopt a scientific methodology for its planning and execution.

Point of Departure 2: To demonstrate proof of the serious nature of the work.

Point of Departure 3: To reconcile international engagement with flexibility at a local level.

Point of Departure 4: To reconcile political engagement and the necessity of avoiding isolation on one hand, with permanent education and institutional action on the other.

Point of Departure 5: To be used to establish an Islamic State; parallel, progressive efforts targeted at controlling the local centers of power through institutional action.

Point of Departure 6: To work with loyalty alongside Islamic groups and institutions in multiple areas to agree on common ground, in order to “cooperate on the points of agreement and set aside the points of disagreement”.

Point of Departure 7: To accept the principle of temporary cooperation between Islamic movements and nationalist movements in the broad sphere and on common ground such as the struggle against colonialism, preaching and the Jewish state, without however having to form alliances. This will require, on the other hand, limited contacts between certain leaders, on a case by case basis, as long as these contacts do not violate the [shari’a] law. Nevertheless, one must not give them allegiance or take them into confidence, bearing in mind that the Islamic movement must be the origin of the initiatives and orientations taken.

Point of Departure 8: To master the art of the possible on a temporary basis without abusing the basic principles, bearing in mind that Allah’s teachings always apply. One must order the suitable and forbid that which is not, always providing a documented opinion. But we should not look for confrontation with our adversaries, at the local or the global scale, which would be disproportionate and could lead to attacks against the dawa or its disciples.

Point of Departure 9: To construct a permanent force of the Islamic dawa and support movements engaged in jihad across the Muslim world, to varying degrees and insofar as possible.

Point of Departure 10: To use diverse and varied surveillance systems, in several places, to gather information and adopt a single effective warning system serving the worldwide Islamic movement. In fact, surveillance, policy decisions and effective communications complement each other.

Point of Departure 11: To adopt the Palestinian cause as part of a worldwide Islamic plan, with the policy plan and by means of jihad, since it acts as the keystone of the renaissance of the Arab world today.

Point of Departure 12: To know how to turn to self-criticism and permanent evaluation of worldwide Islamic policy and its objectives, of its content and its procedures, in order to improve it. This is a duty and a necessity according to the precepts of shari’a.

 

Go to New Zeal to finish the article and watch the 11 minute Glenn Beck video at the end of the article. Steve Coughlin, Patrick Poole, Erick Stakelbeck, Joe Shmitz, and Robert Reilly discuss the extent and seriousness of the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in America.