National Security Expert Slams Hillary’s ‘Assault’ On Free Speech

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) places her hand over her heart during the National Anthem at the 30th annual Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, in this September 16, 2007 file photo. (REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files)

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) places her hand over her heart during the National Anthem at the 30th annual Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, in this September 16, 2007 file photo. (REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files)

Daily Caller, by Rachel Stoltzfoos, July 18, 2015:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton put her willingness to defend the Constitution in serious doubt when she promised Islamic countries the United States government would intimidate Americans who violate their free speech code, national security expert Stephen Coughlin told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

As Secretary of State, Clinton promised an international Islamic organization in 2011 that the United States government would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to intimidate Americans who improperly criticize Islam or Muhammad.

“An official of the United States, in an official communiqué, went to a foreign land to commit to a foreign leader that the United States Government would engage in the extra-legal practice of intimidating American citizens in the exercise of what is otherwise their protected free speech rights under the First Amendment,” Coughlin told TheDCNF.

Coughlin discusses the move in his recently published book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad,” and told TheDCNF it casts a pall on her record as secretary of state.

“If her willingness to sell out Americans First Amendment rights to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation by categorizing as ‘hate speech’ anything that is deemed offensive to Islam is any indication, she may be the least qualified candidate to support and defend the Constitution,” he said.

Coughlin’s an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and expert on Islamic law and terrorism who consulted the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff for about a decade following 9/11, before the Muslim Brotherhood allegedly convinced the White House to ban him and “outlaw” his briefings.

He cites Clinton’s 2011 visit to Turkey and her cooperation with the OIC in his book as one example of how muslim ideologists wield influence in the “highest reaches” of the U.S. government.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The OIC is the second-largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N., consisting of 57 states that identify as “the collective voice of the Muslim world.”

After she helped the OIC secure passage of U.N. resolution 16/18, “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” Clinton promised the U.S. would take what steps it could to curb speech critical of Islam.

“And together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs,” she said in an address following the resolution’s passage.

“We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy,” she added. “So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel they have the support to do what we abhor.”

The resolution condemns “any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media.”

Coughlin argues in his book it’s part of a deliberate OIC-led effort to bring the U.S. and other countries in line with Muslim speech standards, first by condemning and eventually criminalizing unwanted speech such as depictions of Muhammad.

“Over the last few years, major left wing and Islamists organizations have been working diligently to reframe free speech in an oppositional narrative that distinguishes sanctioned speech, designated free speech, from hate speech in a long term campaign to brand nonconforming speech as hate speech that is at first to be ridiculed and then criminalized,” he told TheDCNF.

***

ICYMI:

BOOK RELEASE: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech

Michael Savage Interviews ‘Catastrophic Failure’ Author Stephen Coughlin

Catastrophic-Failure-Cut

In light of the recent comments by the President on defeating the enemy’s ideology, Stephen Coughlin reminds us how it was Obama who has played a major role in blinding us to that ideology by, among other things, adopting Quintan Wiktorowicz’s “Countering Violent Extremism” narrative and empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. Listen and find out how and when the wrong headed “Moderate Muslim Brotherhood” narrative was adopted.

Also see:

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Q&A part 1

red pill brief 2

Published on Jun 25, 2015 by Vlad Tepes

This is the first part of the question and answer session after Stephen Coughlin’s Red Pill brief given in Austria in May 2015

***

For the rest of the briefing go HERE

Blindfolded America

John-Brennan-CIA-660x350-1434704398
Crisis Magazine, by Wiliam Kilpatrick, June 19. 2015:

If you’ve ever noticed that U.S. policy in regard to the war on terror is confused, you’ll appreciate Stephen Coughlin’s just released book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

The confusion is no accident, says Coughlin, but is the result of a deliberate Muslim Brotherhood plan to influence decision-making at the highest levels of the government and the military. Coughlin is an attorney, intelligence officer, and an expert on Islamic law and ideology. He is well-known for his “Red Pill” briefings to the security and defense establishments and to members of Congress. The “Red Pill” is a reference to the pill which allowed the characters in The Matrix to see reality as it is and to leave behind the false virtual reality that had been constructed for them.

Coughlin discusses the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the government, the military, the security establishment, transnational bodies, and even the interfaith community. Just as importantly he explains the overall strategy which guides the Muslim Brotherhood’s various influence operations. A major component of the strategy is deception. Thus, in America, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups—who are anything but moderate—present themselves as the moderate experts on Islam who possess the knowledge to counter the radicals.

Of course, they don’t advertise themselves as the Muslim Brotherhood. But when American security agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security consult with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, or a dozen other such groups, they are in effect dealing with the Brotherhood. The connections between these organizations and the Brotherhood are well-established, but for various reasons our agencies ignore the evidence. One reason is that many in the government believe that the Muslim Brotherhood—the progenitor of almost all terrorist groups—is genuinely moderate. Another reason is that the Brotherhood-linked groups are practically the only game in town. They are well-organized, well-funded, and have been ingratiating themselves with successive administrations for decades.

coughlin-coverWhatever the reason, these are the groups our security leaders turn to for advice. And, according to Coughlin, it’s not just input that is sought, but also direction. In effect, he says, we have outsourced our understanding of Islam to groups who do not have the best interests of America at heart. The other side of the coin is that the advice of other competent experts is ignored. When the advice of the Muslim experts contradicts the advice of non-Muslim experts, the Muslim advice is favored and the non-Muslim expert might well find himself out of a job.

Why does Muslim expert advice consistently trump non-Muslim expert advice? According to Coughlin, the security-intelligence establishment is in thrall to the same multicultural and relativist dogmas that afflict the rest of us. One of these dogmas, elaborated in Edward Said’s 1978 book Orientalism, is that no culture can ever explain another culture. Each culture is the final arbiter of its own meaning. For an outside culture to try to explain Islam is therefore tantamount to an act of cultural imperialism. Thus, says Coughlin, Muslim cultural experts are not even required to provide evidence for their assertions: “Often, all that is required to halt an inquiry or analysis are the words, ‘Islam does not stand for this’ from a cultural expert.”

The upshot, says Coughlin, is that many of our critical decisions on homeland security and on military and foreign policy are guided by groups whose main objective is to turn all societies into Islamic societies.

According to Coughlin, a prime instance of a Muslim Brotherhood influence operation occurred in 2012, when the White House purged more than one thousand documents and presentations from counterterror training programs for the FBI and other agencies. This was done in response to a letter to John Brennan, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. The letter, which was signed by dozens of leaders of Muslim activist groups, complained about the “use of biased, false, and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” After the FBI training program was made Islam-compliant, the Department of Defense followed with what Coughlin describes as a “Soviet-style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education.”

Coughlin contends that a similar kowtowing to Islamic interests has undermined our war efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rules of engagement that subordinate the safety of our troops to the overriding principles of “respect for Islam” have a profoundly demoralizing effect on soldiers and make them think twice about a career in the Army. Coughlin cites a survey of West Point graduates showing that nearly half of young officers think the current military leadership is weak, while 78 percent think that the high exit rate of good officers threatens national security.

According to Coughlin, such demoralization is among the chief aims of Islamic strategists. “The Islamic way of war,” he writes, “places substantial effort on the preparation stage, the object of which is to induce a collapse of faith in the cultural, political and religious institutions underpinning the target.” As an example of this strategy he cites The Quranic Doctrine of War, a book by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik. Malik stressed that the chief effort prior to actual warfare should be to “dislocate” the enemies’ faith:

To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy [it] is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror…. Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s faith is destroyed.

Coughlin observes that the object of jihad, of both the stealth and armed variety, is the destruction of faith. Therefore, “jihad is primarily understood in terms of spiritual war … a form of warfare that the Pentagon is not disposed to recognize.”

There is, however, one organization that should be disposed to recognize spiritual warfare. Unfortunately, says Coughlin, the Church has proved no better at recognizing and resisting Islamic influence operations than the government and the military. The appendix to his book contains a sixty-three-page chapter titled “Interfaith Outreach.” While Coughlin’s main concern is the undermining of national security, he maintains that Islamic activist groups have taken the entire culture as their target. In “Interfaith Outreach,” he discusses the Muslim Brotherhood attempt to subvert the interfaith community—a process that parallels the penetration of the military and is likewise intended to result in a “dislocation of faith.”

Coughlin focuses in particular on the interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Catholics. Like the security establishment’s “dialogue” with Muslim representatives, the interfaith dialogue, he claims, is rigged to discourage any critical analysis of Islam. One of the principles that guides the dialogue process is that the participants “speak in a way that people of that religion can affirm as accurate.” This, of course, is simply an extension of Said’s contention that one culture has no business explaining another culture. It means that the Catholic dialogue participants should defer to Islam’s interpretation of Islam. Thus, if a Catholic had the temerity to bring up the subject of Islamic violence, it would be enough for his Muslim counterpart to state that Islam has nothing to do with violence, and perhaps to recite a couple of verses from the Koran, and that would be that.

Full and frank discussion is further inhibited by an overarching emphasis on trust and friendship. The ground rules stipulate that “dialogue must take place in an atmosphere of mutual trust.Moreover, to quote from Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, dialogue partners must pledge “to remain committed to being friends when the world would separate us from one another.” That sounds nice, but isn’t there a danger that the bonds of friendship might get in the way of objectivity? That friendship might actually undermine objectivity? Thus, writes Coughlin, “persons who undertake a reasonable effort … [of] performing a competent assessment of the ‘others’ religion could be characterized as lacking the requisite trust….” Too deep an inquiry might bring accusations that one is uncharitable, intolerant or Islamophobic. So, in order “to remain committed to being friends,” dialoguers tend to avoid the crucial questions in favor of discussing the common ground between Muslims and Christians.

Read more

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Brief

red pill brief
Maj. Stephen Coughlin is a retired U.S. Army officer and one of the foremost experts on Islamic law in the United States. For years he was well-known inside the Beltway for his “Red Pill” briefings of military commanders and defense officials on the topics of jihad and sharia. He was so effective in his work that the Muslim Brotherhood successfully arranged to have him pushed out of the Pentagon.

More recently, he is the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, which incorporates material from the “Red Pill” brief, as well as much additional material on the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of Western governments, transnational bodies, NGOs, and the “interfaith” industry.

The videos below are of a “Red Pill” briefing Maj. Coughlin gave to the Wiener Akademikerbund on May 23 under the auspices of Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, following his participation with the team at the OSCE conference in Vienna.

Recorded by Henrik Ræder Clausen and edited by Vlad Tepes (h/t Gates of Vienna)

***

More with Stephen Coughlin:

Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad

1710871446Secure Freedom Radio, June 10, 2015: With Stephen Coughlin

STEPHEN COUGHLIN, author of “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in Face of Jihad”:

PART ONE:

  • The Islamic law of the land: Shariah
  • The non-kinetic battle space of information operations
  • Political, military, legal, and religious arms of Shariah
  • Defining “Jihad”

PART TWO:

  • Western misconceptions of the term “jihad”
  • The Muslim Brotherhoods explicit purpose in America
  • David Shipler’s Freedom of Speech
  • An Islamist alignment with the Left

PART THREE:

  • Examining the relationship between the Pentagon and the Islamic Society of North America
  • The true reach of Muslim Brotherhood agents and affiliates within the US government
  • What does it mean if “you don’t know your enemy?”

PART FOUR:

  • State Department mantra that “ISIS isn’t Islamic”
  • U.N. Resolution 1618, Hillary Clinton, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
  • Understanding the Interfaith Movement as a cultural, Marxist organization
  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth jihad within the US

“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: