REPORT: Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror

UA-Report-2Unconstrained Analytics, by Stephen Coughlin, Jan. 27, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has written a new Unconstrained Analysis report entitled, Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror.”

This strategic overview argues for how the War on Terror should be visualized alongside the processes that seek to obscure it and reflects analyses undertaken over the years to explain the nature of the threat in light of emerging Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) protocols, how the enemy envisions the war, and how he understands victory.

The metaphor is a house engulfed in a crucible of flames. Where the people burning in the house see three players, it is long overdue to understand them as one. Where people see civilization jihad disassociated from assaults from the left, it is time to recognize alliance. The enemy believes he has enjoyed success in the war and, indeed, believes he is winning. This view has merit.

The strategic picture painted by this overview is based on the enemy’s self-identified threat doctrine when mapped against the authorities he relies on to legitimize his activities and guide his operations. For this analysis, a decision was made to exclude all bureaucratic programmatics and academic models.

It is based on who the enemy in the War on Terror says he is, not on how others define him. The enemy states repeatedly that he fights jihad to impose Islamic law (shariah) and to re-establish the Caliphate. He does not say he fights jihad to force conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. He never states that he fights in furtherance of “root” or “underlying” causes.

From a legal perspective, the threat’s stated fidelity to shariah as the law of the land suggests that the threat does not raise First Amendment issues so much as it raises concerns regarding Article VI of the Constitution (“This Constitution shall be … the supreme law of the land”). It turns out that Islamic law, with unsettling precision, supports “violent extremists” to a degree that true moderates cannot match and that faux moderates seek to suppress.

This explains why “moderates” of all stripes avoid talking about Islamic law when discussing Islamic terrorism. This overview does not delve into defining doctrines when discussing the threat’s strategic reality. However, it is hoped that the concepts identified here, viewed as a whole, will offer clarity and shed important light on the most serious threat facing the United States today.

While all elements of U.S. national power are engaged in kinetic operations against “violent extremists” in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the primary threat actually defines itself as mujahids, views kinetic operations as a support activity tasked with either sustaining strategic distractions or supporting narratives, and seeks victory against the United States through ideological subversion directed against senior leadership and media elites. This analysis challenges the current conceptual and operational framework and calls for its dramatic reconsideration.

A diagram (see page 3) is used to illustrate the three lines of operation along which the United States has come under sustained assault in the War on Terror in much the way that a house can be engulfed in flames. All of these lines of operation, only one of which is kinetic, will be associated with a real-world entity to show how it orients on the objective.

diagram of threat

This strategic overview is the product of extensive research that in recent years has informed and supported numerous papers, presentations, a thesis (To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad), and the book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Its purpose is to explain how the enemy understands and orients to his universe.

A further objective is to advocate a return to true intelligence analysis and urge the abandonment of current analytical processes that sustain the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narrative at the expense of a real threat-focused fact-based analysis.

Read the Report:

Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror (pdf)

Islam, Jihad, and our Ignorance

mosqueinabujaPolitically Short, by Nick Short on Nov. 28, 2015:

“Ignorance kills. In war, ignorance brings defeat, especially for those who are sworn to support and defend us,” writes Stephen Coughlin in his latest book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Coughlin continues, “While ignorance is not a crime for the average person, it is for professionals concerning subject matter that is the object of their professions. Why shouldn’t this hold true for national security professionals? For them, one requirement is that they know the enemy by undertaking real threat identification of entities that constitute actual threats to the Constitution and people of the United States.”

The refusal to account for the doctrinal elements of Islam in our national security analyses constitutes the professional malpractice that Coughlin was alluding to as our threat doctrine has been reduced to strategic incomprehension and incoherence. In wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris that took the lives of 130 and injured 350 others, Coughlin ominously warned back in April that this strategic incoherence in the War on Terror “will increasingly be measured by news stories that reveal senior leaders’ inability to answer basic questions about the nature of the enemy and his environment. It will also manifest itself in official responses to terrorist attacks that become progressively less reality-based.” Yet, as Americans, Parisians, and virtually every citizen living within Western society grows more outraged by yet another failure of intelligence in stopping the latest jihadist attack, “those professionally and constitutionally tasked with keeping them safe continue to lack awareness, understanding, and even professional curiosity about the doctrines that drive the enemy to action,” notes Coughlin.

For our enemies, the implementation of Islamic law known as sharia is both the objective and the basis in which they routinely states their justification for attack. Our enemy openly declares that they are engaged in a global jihad as Islamic law serves as their doctrinal driver to commit murder in order to establish an “Islamic state”, or Caliphate, governed by Islamic law.  Osama bin Laden stated the following in 2002:

Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread Shari’a law to the world — that and nothing else. Not laws under the “umbrella of justice, morality, and rights” as understood by the masses. No, the Shari’a of Islam is the foundation. … In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their system of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts Shari’a from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case in the dawn of Islam. … They say that our Shari’a does not impose our particular beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others. … Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His Shari’a.

“Jihad in the cause of Allah” is what the enemy claims it is doing, whether it be the now deceased leader of al-Qaeda or the current leader of ISIS Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. To the exclusion of all other reasons, including “underlying causes” such as economic deprivation, “climate change”, or poverty, the root cause always traces back to Islam itself and the enemy doesn’t just make this claim. What the jihadis say they will do tracks exactly with what they do.

The concepts of jihad given expression by so called “extremists” can be found in the body of Islamic law as defined by recognized authorities and authoritative sources as the legal description has remained consistent across the 1400 year span that incorporates today’s recognized authorities. Defined as “warfare against non-muslims to establish the religion,” the rules of Islamic law pertaining to jihad have remained consistent regardless of whether it was defined by an eighth century Arab, a ninth century Uzebki, a 12th century Spaniard, a 14th century North African, or even a 20th century Arab, Pakistani, Indian, Malaysian or American. “All conformed to the idea that jihad does not end until the world has been made the dar al-Islam,” notes Coughlin, adding “because there is agreement among the scholars on the status of jihad, it belongs to the fixed inner sphere of Islamic law that can never be changed.

“Yet, the requirement of jihad neither begins nor ends with the kinetic aspects of warfare. Coughlin notes that Islamic law divides the world into two states, dar al-Islam (the house of Islam and peace) and dar al-harb (the house of War, which is the world of the infidel and the region of perpetual warfare) with jihad being an unabrogable obligation for Muslims until the dar al-harb is eliminated and the people of the book ‘pay the jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (Qur’an 9: 29).” Anyone who comes from the dar al-harb has the status under Islamic law of harbi (enemy). As a country not governed by Islamic law, the United States resides in the dar al-harb, therefore we Americans are harbi.

To elaborate on this concept, Coughlin cites Majid Khadduri, a professor at John Hopkins University who wrote War and Peace in the Law of Islam (1955) and published his translation of the classic 8th-century treatise Shaybani’s Siyar (1966). The Siyar is among the oldest testaments on international relations and the law of war in Islamic law. Khadduri in War and Peace in the Law of Islam writes:

It follows that the existence of a dar al-Harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-Harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.

It’s imperative to understand this concept for even when a fighting jihad is not underway, a “continuous process of warfare” is waged at the psychological and political levels. Khadduri states this as a matter of doctrine— because the “dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; … the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence.” It is from this context that those who believe, as our current adminstration repeatedly reminds us, that we are “not at war with Islam” can be refuted as Islam has and will continue to remain at war with us as a continuous process of psychological, political, and kinetic warfare.

Through this concept of Islamic warfare, a substantial effort is placed 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. A very clear example of this doctrine is Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik’s The Quranic Concept of War. As Coughlin explains, “In the Quranic Concept of War, Malik emphasized the importance of laying the groundwork for successful military operations. He explained this preparatory stage as a ‘dislocation of faith’ in the target nation’s sense of security and in the capability of its leaders to defend its territory. The inability of the target population’s leadership to protect its citizens in the face of a terror campaign signals the beginning of kinetic operations in earnest. At some point, dawah (issuing of summons) transitions to jihad.” Elaborating on the concept of dawah, Coughlin highlights that it is “often defined as the ‘invitation’ or ‘call to Islam,” the meaning and purpose of which is more extensive and closely associated with jihad. In fact, much of what is popularly called “stealth jihad” are actions taken in preparation for jihad in the dawah phase of operations as explained by Malik when he states the following:

The Quranic strategy comes into to play from the preparation stage, and aims at imposing a direct decision upon the enemy. Other things remaining the same, our preparation for war is the true index of our performance during war. We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause and our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles’ having already won the ‘war of will’. Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart’s dream into a reality. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror.

In the early phases of dawah, one should expect to see an emphasis on penetration and subversion campaigns directed at cultural, political, media, and religious institutions. Actions taken in the early dawah phase are aimed at compromising a community’s core beliefs which substantially contributes to the sense of hopelessness that is exponentially magnified when a jihadist finally commits an act of terrorism. From this perspective and contrary to Western notions of “separation of church and state,” Islam in general defines itself in unitary terms as a complete way of life governed by a single body of law that comes from Allah who retains sole sovereignty. Thus, Islamic law is the legal system “extremists” emulate and seek to impose when fighting jihad both kinetically and non-kinetically.

The refusal to understand the enemy’s doctrine, which tells him not to strike until he has assessed that we are already defeated in our own minds, lends credence to the notion of why we are so routinely caught of guard when a jihadist strikes. Judging by the fact that the FBI currently has nearly 1,000 ongoing ISIS probes in the United States with 82 individuals affiliated with ISIS having been interdicted by law enforcement since March of 2014, the enemy has assessed that the time has come to unleash kinetic attacks as we have already been defeated within our own minds.

“Most importantly,” notes Dr. Sebastian Gorka in his latest ThreatKnowldgeGroup special report on ISIS: The Threat to the United States, “nearly one third of the domestic ISIS cases in the past 18 months involved people who planned to carry out attacks against Americans on U.S. soil. In other words, one third of those interdicted calculated that the best way to serve the new Islamic State and its Caliph, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, is to wage jihad here on the soil of the infidel.” The primary reason that we have seen a 300 percent increase in terrorist arrests in the United States beginning in 2014 compared to the average monthly arrests of al Qaeda suspects since the 9/11 attacks of 2001 is because of the proclaimed caliphate established on June 29, 2014.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch explains that “the Islamic State’s June 29, 2014, proclamation of itself as the caliphate, which in Islamic theology is the Islamic nation, embodying the supranational unity of the Muslim community worldwide under a single leader, the caliph, is the key to [understanding] its appeal to so many Muslims worldwide.” Spencer elaborates, “the caliph is the symbol of the unity of Muslims worldwide, in traditional Islamic theology, Muslims worldwide constitute a single community [known as an umma] and are rightfully citizens of the Islamic Caliphate.” Moreover, if we look to the book Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law that has the imprimatur of Al-Azhar University in Cairo which is the intellectual heartbeat of Islam, we find that it certifies as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community” in which only the caliph is authorized to declare “offensive jihad” in order to “make war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians.” The caliphate, this Sharia manual says, is “both obligatory in itself and the necessary precondition for hundreds of rulings established by Allah Most High to govern and guide Islamic community life.” It quotes the Islamic scholar Abul Hasan Mawardi explaining that the caliph’s role is “preserving the religion and managing this-worldly affairs.”

As Spencer notes, “since the caliph is obligated to wage offensive jihad, we can expect that with the coming of the Islamic State caliphate there will be even more jihad in the wold than here has been recently.” This is because of the appeal that the Caliphate has upon Muslims who are devoutly religious and since the Islamic States’ theology is straightforward with the Qur’anic justifications for their actions being based on the plain words of the text, the appeal will continue as the tens of thousands of Muslims who have already joined ISIS from all over the world testifies to the resonance of their literal reading of Islam’s holy book.

In closing, since adherents to sharia and a strict interpretation of Islam have sworn to destroy us, it is their doctrine that we are required to know. Whether that doctrine is judged by us or this adminstration to be accurate with “genuine” Islam is wholly irrelevant. If it can be demonstrated, which it has been, that the enemy that attacks and kills Americans and seeks to subvert our Constitution refers to and relies on the implementation of sharia to guide and justify his actions, then that is all that matters in terms of the enemy threat doctrine U.S. civilian and military leaders must thoroughly understand and orient upon for the purpose of defeating such foes. As Coughlin concludes, “failing to orient on an enemy’s self-identified doctrines not only violates our own doctrine on threat analysis but renders us unable to defeat the enemy because we have failed properly to identify him.” Such a catastrophic failure of intelligence defies the rules of warfare reaching back to Sun Tzu on the requirement to “know the enemy.” It also completely defies common sense and the canons of professional conduct of our leadership.

We are at war and it’s time we as a nation orient our strategy to reflect it.

Nick Short, a graduate of Northern Arizona University with a Bachelors in Criminal Justice. Politically Short offers a millennials perspective over today’s news outside the beltway of Washington D.C.

Nick is also a contributor to Western Free Press and Western Journalism 

Follow Nick on Twitter , LinkedIn and Google+ 

Email him at Nds56@nau.edu

BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

3673405460 (2)

Center for Security Policy, Nov. 23, 2015:

In this new monograph, adapted from Annex 1 of his superb recent book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Stephen Coughlin explains what’s really behind the so-called ‘interfaith dialogue movement’ and how the Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted the well-meaning but misguided intentions of the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Coughlin’s expertise in the nexus between Islamic Law (shariah) and Islamic terrorism informs his exposure of the manipulative Brotherhood strategy to use the interfaith dialogue arena as an opportunity to edge Catholics toward a dislocation of faith so as to pave the way for the insinuation of shariah into American faith communities and society in general.

At a time when Vatican policy seems to many to have become unmoored from the traditional doctrinal teachings of the Church in ways advanced by the permissive environment of the interfaith dialogue movement, including tolerance of anti-Constitutional, anti-Western, shariah-based Islamic principles as well as those who promote them, this publication hits home hard. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it is intellectually impossible to adhere faithfully to Church doctrine and yet grant acceptance to principles that are fundamentally opposed to such precepts at the same time. Only a dislocation of Catholic faith could allow such moral equivalence. Ultimately, as he argues, the objective of Islamic supremacists is the prioritization of interfaith relationships over advocacy on behalf of fellow Christians being slaughtered elsewhere by the co-religionists of their Muslim interfaith partners—in other words, the neutralization of the Catholic faith community as a serious obstacle to the encroachment of shariah.

In praise of this new Center publication, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said,

While the interfaith dialogue movement presents itself as a laudable effort to ‘bridge’ the distance between faiths, those more familiar with the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood know that the actual agenda of too many such efforts is, in fact, modeled after the well-known dictum of Sayyid Qutb, who candidly reminded Muslims that such a ‘bridge’ is ‘only so that the people of Jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] may come over to Islam.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere: The Catholic Church’s Case Study in Interfaith Delusion is available for purchase in kindle andpaperback format on Amazon.com.

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in Kindle format.

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in paperback format.

Click here to download a PDF of this monograph in its entirety.

Bridge_Building_to_Nowhere

***

Bradley Hooper, a fellow counterjihad activist, posted this very insightful comment on his facebook page:

Does your pastor or priest value their relationship with the local imam more than their relationship with you? If you spoke up for persecuted Christians in the Islamic world and said Islamic law was the main cause of persecution, do you think he or she would encourage you to continue or try to silence you?

When the local pastor meets with the imam they smile, joke, drink coffee and eat cake. (Who doesn’t like drinking coffee, eating cake and talking about pleasant things?) It’s wonderful. The imam is a nice guy. He tells your pastor that Jews, Christians and Muslims used to live in peace and that he is saddened that his religion has been hijacked. The worse things get in the world, the more your pastor holds on to the hope that Jews, Christians and Muslims will one day enjoy the same kind of relationship he enjoys with the local imam. They say it’s important in interfaith dialogue to emphasis similarities, not to talk about differences, and not to talk about the awful things in the Islamic world. But what your pastor or priest probably doesn’t know is that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the interfaith movement and they want pastors, priests and rabbis to value their relationship with their local imam so much, that he or she is willing to speak out against any Christian or Jew who would interfere with the interfaith dialogue by talking about uncomfortable truths. Brotherhood members do not want you or anyone else speaking up for persecuted minorities in the Islamic world and they want your pastor, priest or rabbi to do their dirty work for them by shutting you up. (Some people literally can get away with murder if they’re nice.) A real shepherd does not feed the sheep to the wolves. Please get informed and speak up.

If you’d like to go deeper read Stephen Coughlin’s book “Catastrophic Failure” and Mark Durie’s book “The Third Choice.”

Bradley Hooper is a huge fan of Mark Durie and recommends viewing the following:

 Understanding Islam (video)
 Other faiths under Islam (video)
Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood: what is the difference? (article)

E-BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

3673405460Center for Security Policy, PRESS RELEASE September 22, 2015:

In this new monograph, adapted from Annex 1 of his superb recent book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Stephen Coughlin explains what’s really behind the so-called ‘interfaith dialogue movement’ and how the Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted the well-meaning but misguided intentions of the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Coughlin’s expertise in the nexus between Islamic Law (shariah) and Islamic terrorism informs his exposure of the manipulative Brotherhood strategy to use the interfaith dialogue arena as an opportunity to edge Catholics toward a dislocation of faith so as to pave the way for the insinuation of shariah into American faith communities and society in general.

At a time when Vatican policy seems to many to have become unmoored from the traditional doctrinal teachings of the Church in ways advanced by the permissive environment of the interfaith dialogue movement, including tolerance of anti-Constitutional, anti-Western, shariah-based Islamic principles as well as those who promote them, this publication hits home hard. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it is intellectually impossible to adhere faithfully to Church doctrine and yet grant acceptance to principles that are fundamentally opposed to such precepts at the same time. Only a dislocation of Catholic faith could allow such moral equivalence. Ultimately, as he argues, the objective of Islamic supremacists is the prioritization of interfaith relationships over advocacy on behalf of fellow Christians being slaughtered elsewhere by the co-religionists of their Muslim interfaith partners—in other words, the neutralization of the Catholic faith community as a serious obstacle to the encroachment of shariah.

In praise of this new Center publication, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said,

While the interfaith dialogue movement presents itself as a laudable effort to ‘bridge’ the distance between faiths, those more familiar with the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood know that the actual agenda of too many such efforts is, in fact, modeled after the well-known dictum of Sayyid Qutb, who candidly reminded Muslims that such a ‘bridge’ is ‘only so that the people of Jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] may come over to Islam.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere: The Catholic Church’s Case Study in Interfaith Delusion is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

 

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in Kindle format.

Click here for a full PDF of the monograph.

Watch: Gohmert Speaks Out On Islamic Prayer Service Held at the National Cathedral

100 YEARS AGO: Last Caliph Publicly Calls for War Against Infidels

Published on Nov 14, 2014 by GohmertTX01

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor today about the DC’s National Cathedral hosting of a Muslim prayer service on the anniversary of when the last Caliph declared war against the infidel.

***

Gates of Vienna – The ECUSA Joins the Ummah:

washnatmasjidShortly after this post goes up, the live stream will begin for the first-ever Friday prayers at the brand-new National Masjid in Washington D.C.

Allahu Akhbar, y’all!

 

Defensive or offensive Jihad: History, exegesis vs. contemporary propagation

ShowImage (8)Jerusalem Post, Feb. 13, 2014, By David Bukay: (h/t Bill Warner)

Part one: the religious aspect.

The issue at stake is the deep gap between the horrific acts of terrorism coming from the World Jihad groups, and, at the same time, the propagation emanating from Islamists, Muslims and Westerners; firstly, that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, hijacked by extremists; secondly, that there is only one Jihād, the spiritual, that means to worship Allah; and thirdly that the Muslims are ordered to fight their enemies only defensively.

The stunned Free World witnesses atrocious acts of terror, such as slaughters and beheadings, yet is simultaneously being told that this is only a retaliation towards the Western colonialism and neo-imperialism, or, that these groups are outliers, a small minority; that the threats of demolishing modernity and bringing it back to the 7th century are only because World Jihad wished to defend its land, its lives and its honor against Western aggression.

Hence, the question that arises here is whether Jihād is defensive or offensive? The answer to this will become apparent through analyzing Islamic sources and Muslim exegetes in comparison to contemporary Islamists propagators of the West.

The Arab-Islamic terrorist organization’s strategy against the Free World is comprised of two parallel but coordinated arms: Jihād – a holy war against the infidels, and Da`wah – the persuasive methods used to convince people to join Islam. Both arms are intended to achieve the same objectives, yet both are used at the same time by different activists and are aimed against different targets. However, between both, Da`wah is more dangerous to the Free World. Jihād appears 41 times in 18 Suwar (plural of Sûrah) in the Qur’ān, mostly coupled with fi-Sabīlillah (in the way of Allah; for the sake of Allah), which transforms it into a religious sanction. Da’wah is the Islamic concept of missionary activity, aimed at persuading all human beings to believe in Allâh. Da`wah is the moderate and graceful opening address used to approach non-believers and convince them to submit to Islam, and if it fails, it is the duty of Jihād to achieve the Islamic goals.

According to a Muslim exegete, there are seven major features of the superiority of Arab-Muslims over others, based on the Qur’ān. Firstly, they are the best Ummah ever brought forth to men, bidding good (Ma’rûf) and forbidding evil (Munkar). Secondly, the Muslims are the last of all nations in history and the first on the day of resurrection. Thirdly, their Scriptures are in their breasts (they know it by heart). Furthermore, they take their own alms, yet are rewarded as if they give them away. In addition to this, they have the privilege of intercession (Shafā’ah), which is a pillar of the superiority of the Islamic community over all other communities. Moreover, they answer and are answered, which means that they are distinguished from other communities in their obedience to Allah, as well as in having invocation answered by Allah. Lastly, they will wage war on the people of error and the Anti-Christ.

As the Muslims see it, Islam is for everyone within the human race and should be expanded as a leading religion, until all human beings proclaim that “there is no God but Allâh and Muhammad is his messenger.”Jihād is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam, and its merits are described copiously in many well-respected Islamic religious works. It is called “the neglected duty” or “the forgotten obligation,” and regarded as the sixth pillar of Islam. Professor Bernard Lewis finds that an “overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists… understood the obligation of Jihād in a military sense.”

All four Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence and most of Islamic exegetes agree that the aims of Jihad are to remove the infidel’s oppression and injustice, to eliminate the barriers to the spread of Allah’s truth, and, to establish Islamic justice universally. There are four different ways in which the believer may fulfill his obligations: a) by his heart; b) by his tongue; c) by his hands; d) by the sword. This demonstrates the close connection between Jihād and Da’wah, as well as the fact that they are aimed at establishing Allah’s rule on earth, until either the non-believers embrace Islam (as a result of Da’wah), or submit to Islamic rule and agree to pay the tax poll, the Jizyah; or be killed in the battleground (as a result of Jihad war).

From the Islamic viewpoint, all wars in Islam are religious; the concept of “secular war” does not exist; and Jihād is the only just war known. So, even according to Islamic Jurisdiction, one can wage the most aggressive war using atrocious evil deeds and still see it as a defensive war. The Muslim legal theory states that Islam cannot exist in conjunction with idolatry. This is Shirk, meaning association of other gods and idols with Allah. According to a Hadīth related to Muhammad, he declared: “I am ordered to fight polytheists until they say there is no God but Allah.” Muslims are under the Qur’ān Commandments’ obligation to slay the idolaters. Hence, terrorizing Islamic enemies is Allah’s commandment.

There are four Qur’ān “sword verses” relating to different types of people against whom the believers are obliged to fight: a) Sûrah 9 (verse 5): Fighting the Idolaters; b) Sûrah 9 (verse 29): Fighting the People of the Book, Ahl al-Kitāb; c) Sûrah 9 (verse 73): Fighting the Hypocrites and the infidels; and d) Surah 47 (verse 4): Fighting the Enemies of Islam whoever they are and whenever they can be found. Of these, Sûrah 9 (verse 5) is considered to be the most important. Most Islamic exegetes claim that this verse abrogates 114 or 124 other non-militant verses from Mecca.

The Shahīd is one who is killed and has achieved martyrdom in the battle of Jihād. Islamic exegetes claim that the Shahīd is granted seven glorious gifts: a) He is forgiven at the first drop of his blood; b) He is dressed in the clothes of Imām and sees his status in paradise; c) He is protected from the punishment of the grave; d) He will be safe from the great fear of the Day of Judgment; e) A crown of glory will be placed on his head; f) He will intercede on behalf of 70 members of his family; g) He will be married to 72 Houris. Islamic exegetes take the Qur’ān statements that the Shuhadā’ are alive living beside Allah and enjoying all his grace.

According to Majid Khadduri, Muslims view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective, by defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a temporary break in the ongoing war against the enemy, until Islam controls the whole world. They might come to terms with the enemy, provided that they resume the Jihād after the expiration of the treaty. Defeated Muslims maintained that their battle with the enemy would resume, however long they had to wait for the second round. By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but war-like.

Khadduri states that Muhammad has set the classic example by concluding the Khudaybiyah Treaty, in 628 with the Meccans: a peace treaty with the enemy is a valid instrument. That is, if it serves Muslim interests. Muhammad and his successors always reserved their right to repudiate any treaty or arrangement which they considered as harmful to Islam. Muslim authorities might have come to terms with the enemy, provided it was only for a temporary period. In practice, however, Jihād underwent certain changes in its meaning to suit the changing circumstances of life. This change, did not imply an abandonment of the Jihād duty; it only meant the entry of the obligation into a period of suspension – it assumed a dormant status, from which the leader may revive it at any time he deems necessary.

Also see:

US Government Promoting Islam in Czech Republic

by Soeren Kern:

Critics say the project’s underlying objective is to convert non-Muslim children to Islam by bringing proselytizing messages into public schools under the guise of promoting multiculturalism and fighting “Islamophobia.”

The group recently ran an advertisement promising to pay 250 Czech korunas ($13 dollars) to any student aged 15 to 18 years who would attend a two hour presentation about Islam.

More recently, Muslims in the Czech Republic have tried to ban a book they say is Islamophobic, and have filed a ten-page criminal complaint against its formerly-Muslim author.

The Czech government has approved a new project aimed at promoting Islam in public elementary and secondary schools across the country.

The project—Muslims in the Eyes of Czech Schoolchildren—is being spearheaded by a Muslim advocacy group and is being financed by American taxpayers through a grant from the US Embassy in Prague. (The US State Department is also promoting Islam in other European countries.)

The group says the Czech Ministry of Education has authorized it to organize lectures and seminars aimed at “teaching Czech schoolchildren about Islamic beliefs and practices” and at “fighting stereotypes and prejudices about Muslims.”

But critics—there are many—say the project’s underlying objective is to convert non-Muslim children to Islam by bringing proselytizing messages into public schools under the guise of promoting multiculturalism and fighting “Islamophobia.”

 

Image source: Website of “Muslims in the Eyes of Czech Schoolchildren”.

The group’s website says the first phase of the project involves “analyzing the accuracy of the information about Islam in Czech textbooks on history, geography and social sciences, and mapping the level of teaching about Islam in Czech grammar schools and other secondary schools.”

The second phase of the project involves the implementation of a three-level program that will “acquaint both pupils and teachers with Islam and Muslims” and help them to develop better “critical reception skills” when analyzing supposedly Islamophobic information.

According to the group’s website:

“The first level acquaints the reader with the history of Islam, the basic religious concepts of tradition and contemporary issues such as family [Sharia] law, the veiling of women and Islamophobia.”

“The second level offers a deeper look at the issues and puts more emphasis on the involvement of the pupils.… Pupils will be divided into three groups within which they will study any of the following topics: the veiling of women, media coverage of Islam and Muslims in the Czech Republic. Each group will be led by an experienced tutor, who will acquaint students with the problems by means of prepared materials and subsequent debate.”

“The third level provides schools with artistically oriented projects or discussions with Muslims and professionals dealing with Islam. Artistic activities would involve making a film or taking photographs focused on a day in the life of a Muslim or art workshops and competitions focused on the possibility of integrating Muslims into Czech society.”

The group also organizes thematic lectures, workshops and debates for schools or groups of students, many of which are held at the Municipal Library in Prague—and which are more openly geared toward converting Czech youth to Islam.

One such lecture entitled “Paths of Young Czech Women to Islam” answers questions such as: What makes a young Czech woman want to become a Muslim? It is the main motive always falling in love with a Muslim man or are there other reasons? How does one convert to Islam? How can new Muslims cope with non-Muslim relatives?

Another lecture entitled “Koran, Sunna and the Internet: Where to Do Muslims Get Their Information?” answers questions such as: Where can one get information about the Muslim faith? Is the Koran the only source of information about Islam or are there other sources? Where can one find information that is not mentioned directly in the Koran? The lecture is supplemented by providing students with hands-on opportunities to work with various Islamic texts, including the Koran and the Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet Mohammed].

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Islam “Awareness” in Wyoming

download (93)By Cultural Jihad, April 9, 2014:

The Morocco World News and Wyoming Public Media have reported that the Muslim Student’s Association (MSA) at the University of Wyoming  is organizing it’s Annual Islam Awareness Week April 7-13, 2014.

The scheduled featured speaker is Prof. Muhammad Shakir, Co-Imam of the Islamic Center of Fort Collins, Colorado:

  • The Islamic Center of Fort Collins (ICFC) was named in a 2010 New York Times article about Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Muslim convert who later became an Al-Qaeda leader in Yemen:

    ” … Meanwhile, at the Islamic Center of Fort Collins, the little mosque where volunteers took turns giving the Friday sermon, Mr. Awlaki discovered a knack for preaching. If he could boast of no deep scholarship, he knew the Koran and the sayings of the prophet, spoke fluent English and had a light touch.”

The MSA at the University of Wyoming bylaws clearly spell out its affiliations with the national MSA as well as the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) andIslamic Society of North America (ISNA). The chapter has hosted a number of controversial Islamist speakers in the past.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

COMMENT/ANALYSIS:  This type of open house style function is typical among many of the MSA organizations across the country. We highlighted one last year in Maine, “Islamic Center features Islam and terrorism – Bangor Maine“.  This year the Maine group’s featured speaker was Corey Saylor, from the Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR.

As we reported in Muslim Students Assoc at LSU — connecting the dots on the Gulf Coast, several MSA members and leaders have been linked to jihadist and terror related activities.

The overall mission behind most of these awareness campaigns is to facilitate Da’wah, the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.  It is one of the roles of MSA but reason behind the campaigns is seldom promoted that way.

Also see:

Commending Muslims for… Being Muslim? (chersonandmolschky.com)

Muslims of the Americas’ Anti-Semitic Interfaith Campaign

United Christia forum site

The group’s website and video are full of anti-Semitism. Either their interfaith partners failed to visit its website or ignored it.

By Ryan Mauro:

The Muslims of the Americas, an extremist group whose leader is in Pakistan, held another interfaith event in late March in Binghamton, NY. The group also says it has an interfaith chapter at Binghamton University. Just a simple glance at its preaching shows this “interfaith” is actually based on outlandish anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is at the root of MOA’s beliefs. Its leader, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, preaches that Jews are “an example of human Satans.” He also said, “I have never seen, in the whole of my life, or even in the past thousand years, a Jew who will tell the truth.”

His group believes the world is under assault from a Satanic-Jewish conspiracy. He predicts ultimate Islamic victory because Muslims value martyrdom more than Zionists “love their gold, jewelry, women and wine.”

The MOA’s interfaith front, the United Muslim Christian Forum, is no different. Its website even has anti-Semitism on it. This means one of two things: Either MOA’s interfaith partners either failed to visit its website or ignored it. One page repeats the discredited rumor that 4,000 Jews didn’t show up at the World Trade Center on 9/11. It says the attacks were “Stage One of Getting the Western world, on behalf of the Jews, to go to war with the Arab world.”

The organization says that Professor Diane O’Heron is the “faculty facilitator” for its chapter at the State University of New York—Broome Community College. Its latest event, the “Jesus, Son of Mary Interfaith Dialogue” happened on March 29. It featured Pastor E. Andre Stanton of the Revelation Center and Professor Dr. Denise Yull of Binghamton University. MOA claims that over 500 people attended.

Read more at Clarion Project

Extremist Chaplains, Literature Flooding U.S. Prisons

Prison inmate

The high number of former prison inmates involved in Islamic terrorism shows inroads the Saudi ‘Wahhabi machine’ in the U.S.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The Virginia-based Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, an extremist mosque attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers with extensive links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, is fundraising for its outreach to inmates. The fundraising pitch quotes an extremist cleric and says the mosque has been working with the Washington, D.C. jail for 10 years.

“For over a decade Dar Al-Hijrah has been supporting the spiritual growth of Muslim inmates in the
DC jail, CTF [Correctional Treatment Facility] and youth offenders,” the announcement states.

The request is specifically for donations to send 100 Qurans to the inmates.

There’s a sign of danger even in the announcement itself. It uses a quote from the Islamist theologian Ibn Taymiyya, “Let my imprisonment be a spiritual retreat.”

Dar al-Hijra dawahThe choice of this particular Islamic cleric gives us insight into the ideology of the mosque’s leadership.

Atta Barkindo, a respected researcher on political Islamwrites, “some scholars suggest there is probably no other Islamic theologian, medieval or otherwise, who has had as much influence on radical political ideology of Islam as Ibn Taymiyya.” This includes the leaders of Al-Qaeda.

In fact, Osama Bin Laden quoted Taymiyya in 2003, pointing to when he said, “to drive off the enemy aggressor who destroys both religion and the world—there is no religious duty more important than this, apart from belief itself. This is an unconditional rule.”

The basis of Taymiyya’s preaching is that sharia must be the form of governance, a premise that “runs contrary to the demands of the fundamental principles of democracy.” He argued that the failure to do this is responsible for the descent of the Muslim world, and it would continue until Muslims overthrew their leaders that did not implement sharia governance.

Much more at Clarion Project

KSM’s Prison Communiqués Part II: Wartime Religion of Peace Propaganda

20120506_khalid_sheikh_mohammed (1)by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY:

We explained in yesterday’s Ordered Liberty post that the publication of jihad heavyweight Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s communiqués, disseminated from the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, herald the return of the pre-9/11 paradigm: jihadist terror treated as a mere law-enforcement problem, not a war. Now, we turn to the propaganda aspects of KSM’s published writings, which – so far as we know at this time – include an Islamic-supremacist manifesto (published by the Huffington Post) and a lengthy letter to a social-worker pen-pal in Britain (reported on by the Guardian).

Let’s start by observing that it would have been inconceivable during, say, World War II, for the U.S. government to permit imprisoned German or Japanese enemy combatants (of which there were thousands) to enable publication of ideological propaganda from American detention facilities. It would have been nearly as inconceivable for American lawyers to argue that alien enemy combatants had a “right” to communicate with the outside world this way, or for American news outlets to publish enemy propaganda under the guise of “news” reporting. The two latter institutions have changed for the worse, and the government (very much including the courts) is bending to accommodate, rather than resisting, the Lawyer Left and the media.

For the reasons detailed in yesterday’s post, this is an alarming development. The national imperative in wartime should be victory over our enemies. We should not be at war unless we have that commitment – it is a profound betrayal of the young men and women we put in harm’s way to enable our enemies. KSM has no constitutional rights, we owe him only humane treatment, and it is ludicrous to suggest that he has a right to get his messages out to the world while he is lawfully detained as an enemy combatant.

Yet, the Obama Defense Department told Fox News that it is capable of vetting jihadist communications to ensure that their publication poses no threat. Even assuming for argument’s sake that the government has such a duty – and it does not, there should be a blanket prohibition – the claim is laughable.

As I demonstrated in yesterday’s post, the communications of imprisoned jihadists, even those that seem ostensibly harmless, increase the prestige of the inmates in the eyes of Islamic supremacists. They can be exploited by the imprisoned jihadists’ confederates for purposes of fundraising, recruitment, and calls to violence. It is not a matter of what our genius government analysts believe they can divine in the way of jihadist commands and coded messages. It is a matter of how the jihadists on the outside can use communications from imprisoned terrorists to promote anti-Americanism and jihadism.

But even putting that aside, our government is incompetent when it comes to vetting jihadist communications. It cannot be competent because it has spent the last quarter century putting its head in the sand on the matter of Islamic supremacist ideology and the nexus between Islamic scripture and jihadist violence.

Back in 2008, I wrote a book called Willful Blindness about what even then was a longstanding dysfunction. Yet, things have gotten much worse, particularly under Obama’s watch. The government has now purged information about Islamic supremacism from instruction materials used to train our military, intelligence and law-enforcement agents – effectively giving Islamist organizations and operatives (many with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and red-carpet access to the administration) a veto over what our investigators and analysts may be taught about the ideology that catalyzes the threat to our nation.

The resulting debacle is elucidated by the press reporting on KSM’s communiqués, which shows why information of this sort should never be published in wartime. The HuffPo story uncritically reports, for example, that KSM is now trying to persuade people to come to Islam peacefully and that forcing people to convert to Islam is against the Koran. The obvious agenda is to put KSM – the most evil mass-murderer ever to be in American custody – in a more sympathetic light, or at the very least to bleach away any nexus between Islamic principles and atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam.

But KSM has not changed and neither have his beliefs – they remain as enduring as our conscious avoidance of his ideology.

In point of fact, Islamic law teaches that, before waging offensive jihad, Muslims must first invite non-believers to accept the truth of Islam. Doctrinally, this summons to Islam is a necessary precondition to waging violent jihad. There are numerous examples of bin Laden and Zawahiri (bin Laden’s deputy and now the leader of al Qaeda) issuing public statements calling on infidels to accept Islam. Under their interpretation of sharia, it is a box they are supposed to check before they start blowing things up and steering airplanes into skyscrapers.

The reporting makes much of KSM’s assertion that the Koran forbids forcible conversion to Islam. The narrative now making the rounds is that KSM “has renounced violence,” as Canada’s National Post puts it.

Even a cursory familiarity with Islamic supremacist ideology would put this specious claim to rest. It is true, in the most narrow of senses, that Islamic doctrine forbids forcible conversion: Muslims are not supposed to hold a gun to your head to force you to convert. But Islamic doctrine endorses violence for the purpose of promoting Islam, and conversion is not close to being the most significant way of promoting Islam.

Read more: Family Security Matters

See also:

Open Mosque Day — Muslims Serve Up Tea and Taqiyyah

download (62)By Jerry Gordan:

A Summary Report on Open Mosque Day in Southern California

October 27, 2013

Prepared by a team of activist investigators

Sunday, October 27, 2013 was Open Mosque Day at 23 mosques and Islamic Centers in Southern California. California has  246 mosques – 120  of them in the Southern California area. It is second only to the Greater New York area with 192 mosques. An invitation communiqué from the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California  assured non-Muslims that “Muslims are happy to answer questions about their religion.”

An  Orange County Register article on the Open Mosque Day event noted:

Roughly 500,000 Muslims from 100 different ethnic backgrounds live in Southern California. The event has been successful in helping local Muslim organizations develop rapport with other religious communities.

“We have seen very formalized relationships between mosques and churches and mosques and synagogues,” said Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council. “And that has really resulted in working together in coalitions and alliances and (on) issues that impact not just a particular group of individuals but many religious organizations.”

Syed cited a number of instances in which Christian and Jewish groups in Southern California have stood by Muslims, and vice versa – a direct result of the relationships built through past Open Mosque Days.

When  [11] UC Irvine [and Riverside]  Muslim students were arrested and [later convicted] for disrupting  former Israeli Ambassador [Michael Oren’s] speech in [February 2010], a number of Christian and Jewish groups publicly supported the students and the Shura Council’s protest, Syed said.

Against this background a  group of investigator activists  attended  and reported on exchanges with Imams and Mosque members at:

  • Islamic Center of Orange County, Garden Grove;
  • Omar Al-Farouk Mosque, Anaheim, California;
  • Islamic Center of Irvine;
  • King Fahd Mosque, Culver City; and,
  • Islamic Center of South Bay, Lomita

Based on reports from those who visited the mosques, their hosts were very cordial. The visitors were provided with refreshments, guided tours, and even question-and-answer sessions about the mosque and Islam in general. However the answers to ideological questions left more than a few visitors disappointed and they felt their intelligence was insulted by the evasive answers. Taqiyyah –religiously sanctioned dissimilitude; i.e., lying for Allah—was very much in evidence.

For those unfamiliar with this term, the Qur’anic reference to taqiyyah is Surah 3:28:  ‘’Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defense.”  The Arabic word for self-defense here is tuqah which means to guard against. In Reliance of the Traveller, section r8.2 on Permissible Lying, it says, “When it is possible to achieve such an aim (as advancing Islam) by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.  . . . But it is religiously more precautionary in all such cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying, while the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer . . . .”  As we will see below, the hosts at the mosques could not defend their ideology by telling the truth, so they resorted to lying.

The expansion of mosques in America is proceeding at a rapid pace, underwritten by oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The number of mosques and Islamic Centers almost doubled from 1,209 in 2000 to 2,106 in 2011, most of this increase occurring after the Islamic terror attack on 9/11/01.  It is estimated that 80% of the new establishments are sponsored (and guided) by the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia, with their U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood affiliates operating as the front-men for the projects. (See Chapter 8, “Mosques, Enclaves, Victory,” in Erick Stakelbeck’s 2013 book ,The Brotherhood, America’s Next Great Enemy.)  In 1995, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, boasted at an Islamic conference in Ohio, “We will conquer Europe; we will conquer America, not through the sword but through da’wah [proselytizing].”  He has since been banned from entering the U.S.

But da’wah and taqiyyah seem to work only among the uninformed. Sooner or later, however, the converts to Islam will read the actual sacred texts of Islam and realize that the sweet words and deceptive answers to questions about Islam are not true. It is reported that 75% of the converts to Islam leave the faith within a few years. (See:  http://somalifreethinkers.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-muslims-are-leaving-islam.html )  Muslims themselves acknowledge that over 6 million Muslims leave Islam every year. Truth has a way of catching up with falsehood.

In view of the prevalent deception during Open Mosque Day, it is important to pay close attention to the answers given to the ideological issues that are of most concern to non-Muslims. The following is a compilation of the issues discussed at various mosques along with the truth found in the recognized sacred Islamic texts.

Read more at New English Review

MUST READ: Lucky Cypress, Texas has not one, but two, mosques!

321305_377533169017251_862168801_n by witnesstojihad:

Cypress, Texas, a suburban bedroom community in northwest Harris county, is now home to not one, but two mosques! They are the “Islamic Outreach Center” (IOC) and the “Cypress Islamic Center” (CIC). The two mosques are less than two miles apart, as the crow flies.

The Islamic Outreach Center is a project of ICNA, the Islamic Circle of North America. ICNA is a Muslim Brotherhood in North America front group whose “…work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the 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. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny…”

The Islamic Outreach Center (another taqiyyah term for a mosque) opened in the summer of 2012. The address is 19025 Wilks Dr, which is off Mueschke Rd (north of Schiel Rd and south of Bauer Hockley Rd). Neighbors have already complained of the increased noise, traffic and lowering property values. In it’s one year existence, the masjid has already hosted a number of supremacist and intolerant Islamic spokesmen.

In February 2013, the masjid hosted a presentation on Islamic financing, sponsored by an Islamic bank in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which advocates strict sharia compliance. What’s the problem with sharia finance, you ask? Well, educate yourself. On the IOC’s Facebook page, they promote the ICNA Relief’s Houston banquet in June 2013, which featured speaker Yasir Qadhi, who was exposed in a video on this blog for saying “Christians are filthy, evil, impure, dirty kufar whose life and property hold no value in the state of jihad.” The masjid has recently hosted Sheihk Waleed Basyouni, who in 2006, stated that “…Muslims are “the only people who know God” and, as such, are uniquely righteous and clearly distinguishable from nonbelievers.” Are you feeling the inter-faith love, the Islamic outreach, and the Muslim-Christian understanding?

The resident imam of the “IOC” is Fahad Tasleem, who studied Arabic at Georgetown University (home of John Esposito and the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding). Brother Tasleem is also very proud of his time spent in Mecca & Medina. Br. Tasleem wasted no time in engaging in deceptive dawa with the neighboring ignorant kufar, as demonstrated by his lectures given at the IOC about the Jesus of Islam and at the “Good Shepherd” church:

 

 

Here’s a little more about the good brother: “In 2007, Fahad Tasleem founded Dawah Corps – an organization with a mission to ignite, for Muslims living in the West, a passion for Islamic outreach. Fahad’s expertise in the realm of dawah stems from a number of years of experience with the various outreach efforts of MSA’s, [Muslim Students Association] Islamic centers, and Islamic organizations across North America. Fahad has also served as a khateeb [person who delivers Koran narrations] and lecturer for the Islamic Society of Greater Houston.  …   He is the founder and lead instructor at the DC [Dawa Corps] Seminary along with being an adjunct professor at various other universities and colleges.  …  Fahad Tasleem recently joined ILF [Islamic Learning Foundation] Texas, a teaching project of ICNA. He is an instructor for ILF Houston on site classes at Islamic Outreach Center (IOC-Cypress).” Coincidentally, the MSA is also a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Read more at ACT! for America Houston

Imam Feisal’s Taqiyyah Performance

by JanSuzanne Krasner at American Thinker:

Congratulations  have to go to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, better known as the Ground Zero Imam, for  his splendid performance on Sean Hannity’s May 23 evening interview.   Whether Hannity knew it or not, Imam Feisal used his audience to deliver a  well-thought out ‘taqiyyah’ act where he apologizes profusely, as a “moderate”  Muslim, for his various “insensitive” remarks about Americans being accessories  to 9/11, their role in spilling more blood than Al Queda, and for not condemning  Hamas, Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist groups.

Hannity  seemed to be really taken aback, actually disarmed by the Imam’s confession of  regret. After all, Hannity has been on the case of this Imam since the  controversy of the Park51 (originally Cordoba House) mosque project near Ground  Zero. Hannity even praised him for having the courage to come on his  show.

No  one on the Imam’s team doubted that Hannity would be confrontational and the  Imam was ready to play right into it. This was the perfect opportunity for the  American public to see and hear how the Muslim scholars’ teachings of ‘taqiyya’  really work when a Muslim is cornered and needs to gain the trust of  non-believers to further his agenda.

‘Taqiyya,’  for those of you new to this Islamic word, is about lying to pave the way to  defeat the Infidel.  But, when Imam Feisal spoke one could swear he was  telling the truth. In fact, I do believe that in his mind, he was admitting the  truth.  And what is that truth?  That he was “insensitive,” that he is  sorry for what he said and that he now admits that Hamas, Hezb’allah and some  factions of the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorists.

We  should definitely believe him at these words, as they have no real meaning.   Imam Feisal does not say he disagrees with the comments he had made, only  that he is sorry he made them. He had let the cat out of the bag and now he sees  how foolish that was in his new role in American-Muslim  affairs.

All  of this apologizing softened the atmosphere so the Imam could use the  opportunity to try to bring the American people into a unity with “moderate”  Muslims and focus on fighting extremists of all faiths…and to sell his new  book ‘Moving the Mountain.’ On the surface, this sounds like a good plan. After  all, having this Imam on our side against terrorists should be

What  we do not hear him talk about is how the ideology of Islam, its political, legal and social values, is cleverly entering  into America’s financial, judicial,  governmental, educational and social systems.  We do not hear the Imam talk  about American cities that are being colonized by Muslim immigrants who are  running away from terrible conditions and looking for a better life than they  have in any Muslim country today, bringing with them the hopes for Sharia law in  the future of America.  Imam Feisal admits that Muslims “must abide by  the law of the land.” Therefore the struggle for Sharia in America is critical  to the well-being of its Qur’an believers.

Read more

And read Discover the Networks profile of Imam Feisal Rauf for the truth and a really good rundown of all his slick taqiyya quotes.

 

Sharia Law And US Constitution The Same By Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:

 

Muslim site tells children become Muslim in secret, tell parents later

Do you know where your children are? Where they are going on school class trips? What they are reading online? From a website called MuslimConverts.com:

If you are a Small child you can still become a Muslim without your parents permission

If you are a child you do not need your parent’s permission to become a Muslim. If you fear they may harm, you can become Muslim in secret and tell them when you are ready.

What if their are no Muslims (or no Mosque or Islamic center) in your town

Another  common question  is that there are no Muslims in the city. This too is not an obstacle in you becoming a Muslim. You do not have to go to a Masjid (Mosque) or Islamic center or know any Muslims in order to be a Muslim. You can say the declaration of faith (called the Shahadah) to yourself and from then onwards you are a Muslim. This is explained in the article below in greater detail.

And for the young girls, once you become Muslim there will be plenty of older Muslim males ready to exploit marry you.

Read more