The Secret History of Hezbollah

BY TONY BADRAN:

Thirty years ago last month, Hezbollah blew up the barracks of the U.S Marines and French paratroopers stationed at the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. servicemen and 58 Frenchmen. It wasn’t Hezbollah’s first terrorist operation, but this attack, the most memorable in Lebanon’s vicious and chaotic 15-year-long civil war, marked the Party of God’s entry onto the world stage.

HOSSEIN DEHGHAN IN PARLIAMENT, 2013 AP / EBRAHIM NOROOZI

HOSSEIN DEHGHAN IN PARLIAMENT, 2013
AP / EBRAHIM NOROOZI

Three decades later, thanks to the efforts of Israeli Hezbollah expert Shimon Shapira, we now know that one of the men responsible for the attack was an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander named Hossein Dehghan​—​the man Iranian president Hassan Rouhani recently tapped to be his defense minister. In other words, Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been joined at the hip from the very beginning, even before the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Of course, that’s not the standard account of Hezbollah, the historical narrative jointly constructed and largely agreed upon by Middle East experts, journalists, some Western and Arab intelligence officials, and even Hezbollah figures themselves. This account holds that Hezbollah was founded in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley in 1982 to fight, or “resist,” the Israeli invasion of that year. On this reading, the belief​—​held by the organization’s many critics, targets, and enemies​—​that Hezbollah is little more than an IRGC battalion on the eastern Mediterranean is simply part of a U.S.-Israeli disinformation campaign meant to smear a national resistance movement fighting for the liberation of Lebanese lands. Sure, Hezbollah was founded with some help from Iranian officials, and still receives financial assistance from Tehran, but the organization is strictly a Lebanese affair. It was engendered by Israel’s 1982 invasion and subsequent occupation of Lebanon. The occupation, as one author sympathetic to the group put it, is Hezbollah’s “raison d’être.” 

Even former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak contends that it was the Israeli occupation that gave birth to Hezbollah. “It was our stay [in Lebanon] that established [Hezbollah],” Israel’s most decorated soldier said in 2010. “Hezbollah got stronger not as a result of our exit from Lebanon but as a result of our stay in Lebanon.” Perhaps Barak was simply keen to defend his decision to withdraw Israeli troops from Lebanon in 2000, for his account is simply not true.

The big bang theory of Hezbollah that puts the Israeli occupation at the alpha point is based not in fact but in legend​—​it’s an Israel-centric myth that makes the Jewish state Hezbollah’s motivation and prime mover. In reality, the story of Hezbollah’s origins is a story about Iran, featuring the anti-shah revolutionaries active in Lebanon in the 1970s, years before Israel’s intervention. Thus, to uncover Hezbollah’s roots, it is necessary to mine the accounts of Iranian cadres operating in Lebanon a decade before Israel invaded.

There we find that, contrary to the common wisdom, Hezbollah didn’t arise as a resistance movement to the Israeli occupation. Rather, it was born from the struggle between Iranian revolutionary factions opposed to the shah. Lebanon was a critical front for this rivalry between Hezbollah’s Iranian progenitors and their domestic adversaries. Accordingly, an accurate understanding of this history gives us not only the true story of Hezbollah’s beginnings, but also an insight into the origins of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Those early internal conflicts and impulses, played out in Lebanon as well as Iran, also provide a roadmap for reading the nature of the current regime in Tehran, its motivations and concerns, its strategies and gambits as it moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon and challenging the American order in the Middle East.

Read more at The Weekly Standard

Tony Badran is a columnist for the Beirut-based website NOW Lebanon and a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Islam’s Second Crisis: the troubles to come

sunset on Islam

Muslims will hold Islam accountable when Islamic revivalists promise utopia but deliver chaos and human rights abuses.

By Mark Durie:

In What Went Wrong, Bernard Lewis charted the decline of Islam in the modern era and the resulting theological crisis for the Muslim world.

Now Islam is going through a second crisis, caused by the repeated failures of revivalist responses to the first crisis.  This second crisis, combined with the cumulative effect of the first crisis, which remains unresolved, will lead to a long drawn-out period of political and social instability for Muslim societies.


The first millennium of Islam was a period of expansion through conquest.   However for five centuries from around 1500, Western powers were pushing back Islamic rule.  There were numerous landmarks of the ascendancy of the West (which includes Russia), such as:

  • the conquest of Goa in India by the Portuguese in 1510;
  • the liberation of Christian Ethiopia in 1543 with the aid of the Portuguese soldiers;
  • the defeat of the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna in 1683 and
  • the ensuing liberation of Hungary and Transylvania;
  • Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt in 1798;
  • the USA-Barbary State Wars of 1801-1815, which put an end to tribute payments by the US to the north African states to prevent piracy and the enslavement of US citizens;
  • a long series of defeats for the Ottomans in Russo-Turkish wars stretching across four centuries and culminating in the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish war,
  • which led to the independence of Romania, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria;
  • the overthrow of Muslim principalities in Southeast Asia by the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and English;
  • the final destruction of Mughal rule in India at the hands by the British in 1857;
  • the defeat and dismantling of the Ottoman Empire as a result of WWI;
  • and finally, the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948, in territory formerly ruled by Islam, which was considered by many Muslims to be the crowning humiliation in this long line of defeats.

We are not just talking about Western colonialism.  Some of the victories over Muslim principalities involved the occupation or colonisation of primarily Muslim lands, but many involved the liberation of non-Muslim peoples from the yoke of Muslim rule, such as in Ethiopia, Hungary and India, and some were defensive responses to Islamic aggression, such as the defeat of the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna.

While the external borders of Islam kept shrinking, its position of dominance within its own borders was also being challenged.  During this same period there were in many places improvements in the conditions experienced by non-Muslims under Islamic rule – a weakening of the dhimmi system – which communicated to Muslims an impression of their own faith’s loss of dominance and its loss of ‘success’. A landmark in this long process was the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856, which settled the Crimean War.  As part of this settlement the Ottomans were compelled to grant equal rights to Christians throughout their empire.

The gradual process of improvement of conditions for Christians and Jews under Islam was regretted by Muslim scholars, who saw it as evidence of Islam’s decline.  For example a request for a fatwa from a Egyptian Muslim judge in 1772 lamented the ‘deplorable innovations’ of Christians and Jews, who were daring to make themselves equal to Muslims by their manner of dress and behavior, all in violation of Islamic law.

In a similar vein, the Baghdad Quranic commentator Al-Alusi complained that non-Muslims in Syria during the first half of the 19th century were being permitted to make annual tribute payments by means of an agent, thus escaping the personal ritual degradations prescribed by Islamic law.  He concluded:  “All this is caused by the weakness of Islam.”

Why would Islam’s lack of dominance be evidence of weakness?

Islamic doctrine promises falah ‘success’ to the religion’s followers, symbolized by the daily call to prayer which rings out from minarets: ‘come to success, come to success’. The success promised by Islam has always been understood to be both spiritual and material: conquest and rule this life, and paradise in the next. The Qur’an states that Allah has sent Muhammad “with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to triumph over all (other) religions” (Sura 48:28).

Islam’s theology of success meant that the global failure of Islamic armies and states at the hands of ‘Christian’ states constituted a profound spiritual challenge to Islam’s core claims. Just as Muslim scholars had always pointed to the military victories of Islam as proof of its divine authority, this litany of defeats testified to its failure as the religion of the successful ones.

The urgency of the question ‘What went wrong?’ drove the Islamic revival, an interconnected network of renewal movements which have as their central tenet that Muslims will once again be ‘successful’ – achieving political and military domination over non-Muslims – if they are truly devoted to Allah and implement Islamic laws faithfully.   These are reformation movements in the original (medieval) sense of the Latin word reformatio, for they seek to restore Islam to its former glory by returning to first principles.

Some of the main formative strands of Islamic revivalism have been:

  • the Wahhabi movement which originated in the 18th century;
  • the Deobandi movement in India and Pakistan which dates from 1866;
  • Jamaat e-Islami, which was founded 1941 in India;
  • the Muslim Brotherhood, founded 1928;
  • and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Out of these have come a myriad of offshoots and branches such as the Taliban (from the Deobandi movement); Al Qaida (a product of the ideology of Muslim Brotherhood theologian Said Qutb); the missionary movementTablighi Jamaat; and Hizb Ut-Tahrir.

Even the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the ‘United Nations’ of the Muslim world, is a revivalist organization: this is reflected in its Charter which states that it exists “to work for revitalizing Islam’s pioneering role in the world”, a euphemism for reestablishing Islam’s dominant place in world affairs.

In essence, Islamic revivalist movements aim to restore the greatness of Islam and make it ‘successful’ again.  This hope is embodied, for example, in the Muslim Brotherhood’s slogan “Islam is the solution”.  This implies that when Islam is truly implemented all the problems human beings face – such as poverty, lack of education, corruption, and injustice – will be solved.  The flip-side of this slogan is the thesis that all the problems of the Muslim world have been caused through want of genuine Islamic observance:  Allah allowed his people to fall into disarray because they were not faithful in obeying his laws. The correction to this spiritual problem should therefore be more sharia compliance.  This is the reason why headscarves and burqas have been appearing on Muslim women’s heads with increasing frequency all around the world.

For a time it appeared to many Muslims that the revivalist program was working.  The Iranian Islamic revolution, and the later victory of jihadis in Afghanistan and the break-up of the Soviet Union was considered to be evidence of the success of the revivalist program.  This was the certainly view of the translator of Sheikh Abdullah Azzam’s jihadi tract Join the Caravan:

“The struggle, which he [Sheikh Azzam] stood for, continues, despite the enemies of Islam. ‘They seek to extinguish the light of Allah by their mouths. But Allah refuses save to perfect His light, even if the Disbelievers  are averse. It is He who has sent His messenger with the guidance and the true religion, in order that He may make it prevail over all religions, even if the pagans are averse.’ [Qur'an, 9:32-33] Since the book was written, the Soviets have been expelled from Afghanistan, by Allah’s grace, and the entire  Soviet Union has disintegrated.”

Utopian claims are risky, because they open up the possibility for even greater failure, and amplified cognitive dissonance as the gap between one’s faith and reality widens.  The first crisis of Islam was the rise of West through superior technological, economic and military prowess.  The second crisis is the failure of Islamic revivalism as a response to the first crisis.  The second crisis could prove even more painful and profound in its effects on Islam than the first.

The manifestations of revivalism’s failures are as diverse as the Islamist movements which generated them.  One could point to:

  •  the atrocities and backwardness of the Taliban;
  • the corruption and cruelty after the 1979 Iranian Revolution;
  • the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to govern for the benefit of the Egyptian people, leading to a wildly popular military coup in 2013;
  • the present-day economic collapse of Turkey under big-talking Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan;
  • the genocidal campaigns of Khartoum’s military campaigns against its own citizens, causing more than a million casualties;
  • and the ongoing Iraqi and Syrian jihad-driven bloodbaths.

Everywhere one looks there are good reasons for Muslims to question the Islamic revivalist creed. The outcomes of more than two centuries of theological fervor are not looking good. Muslim states are not realizing the utopian goals set by these movements.  Indeed the opposite is the case: again and again, wherever revivalist movements have gained the ascendancy, human misery has only increased. Too many Muslim states continue to be models of poverty and economic failure, despite all those female heads being covered up.

One inevitable consequence of this trend is disenchantment with Islam, and a growing sense of alienation from the religion. The manifest failure of the revivalist creed creates a sense of anxiety that Islam is under threat, not from the infidel West, but from reputational damage caused by the revivalists themselves.  It is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

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

Fasten your seat-belts: the world will be in for quite a ride in the years to come, as Muslims – who constitute around a quarter of the world’s population – struggle to make theological sense of the trashing of their religion’s utopian vision.  It is one thing to blame the infidels for this – or the proxy tyrants which revivalists claim the West has foisted on the Muslim world – what is more threatening by far is the damage being done to Islam’s name by revivalist Muslims themselves.

Read more

Dr Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, Anglican pastor, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at Melbourne School of Theology. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

You Still Don’t Understand Islamism, Do You?

BY :

Around 2007, I gave a lecture at the Defense Department. One of the attendees presented a scenario suggesting that the “problem of Islam” was not political but a problem of verbiage.
There was a secret debate happening in the Defense Department and the CIA in which some people thought that all Muslims were a problem, some believed that only al-Qa’ida was a problem, and still others thought the Muslim Brotherhood was a problem.
The main problem, however, was that all Islamism was a political threat, but it was the second position that eventually won over the Obama administration. Take note of this, since 2009, if you wanted to build your career and win policy debates, only al-Qa’ida was a problem. The Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat; after all, it did not participate in September 11. This view was well known in policy circles, but it was easy to mistake this growing hegemony as temporary.
Actually, it only got worse.
A Muslim Foreign Service officer recounted how some U.S. officials were trying to persuade the powers that be that al-Qa’ida was split from the Muslim Brotherhood. Imagine how horrified he was. Still other officials told me that there was heavy pressure and there were well-financed lobbyists trying to force officials into the idea that al-Qa’ida was the only problem. Some high-ranking defense department officials–for example, one on the secretary of defense’s level–were pressured to fire anti-Muslim Brotherhood people. I know of at least five such incidences.
For example, I was asked to participate in a contract and co-direct a project for the federal government, and my paper was to be on the idea that all Islamists posed a threat. To my surprise, I was told that my paper was rejected. Shocked, I asked to speak to the two co-contractors on the telephone. Isn’t it true, I said on the phone, that I was to have co-direction of this project? The response was yes it was, nevertheless, a more junior member of the press could not prevail. By the way, this co-director, who likely became interested in the Middle East in large part because of me, was very rude. I then told him that though the project had originally been my idea, I was going to walk away from it and not demand compensation.
In another incident, a high-ranking CIA official posited a paper that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat, only al-Qa’ida was, and U.S. policy should therefore depend on the Brotherhood.
In another case, a U.S. official made a statement at a public function that neither Hizballah nor Hamas posed a threat to U.S. interests.
By 2013, this sprouted in a few people’s arguments that Iran could be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The theoretical situation to government officials was thus clear: If you wanted to make some money in Washington, you would have to toe the line that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat. If sanctions ended against the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamists, including Iran, this could also lead to trillions of dollars in potential trade deals. Note that in 2009 and 2010, an attempt was made to build such a model with Syria, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were being murdered in a civil war.
But Iran was a far more valuable state. In fact, Tehran was a far easier target because it had far more money and could possibly be bought simply by agreeing not to build a nuclear weapon.

Read more

450749fad583a3f3215c5cfa3588d83eProf. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan)

 

Re-posting this for those who have not seen it, (Published on May 3, 2013)

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Military Affairs Fellow and Director, National Security Fellows Program, Foundation for Defense of Democracies [Click here for transcript: http://bit.ly/14z8oJn]

Topic: Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence in the Second Obama Administration: Persistence of Threat Denial?

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill

Failing to Know Our Enemies

pic_giant_121913_SM_Failing-to-Know-Our-EnemeisBy Clifford D. May:

Less than a generation after World War II, in the midst of a cold war whose outcome was far from certain, John F. Kennedy famously proclaimed that Americans would “support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” More than half a century later, in an era fraught with conflict and tension, it may be time to ask: Is that still our credo?

In particular, are Americans still committed to liberty — a word that has come to sound old-fangled? Can our friends still rely upon our support — even when the going gets tough? Do foes still have reason to fear us — or have we become too war-weary to effectively oppose them? And those nations that profess friendship but seek to ingratiate themselves with our foes — what are we to do about them?

These questions, I suspect, will require a great deal more study, thought, and debate before they can be adequately answered. But 34 years after the Iranian Revolution, and twelve years after the attacks of 9/11, we at least should know our enemies. And we should have settled on a strategy aimed at defeating them. But we don’t. And we haven’t.

Many of us turn away from an uncomfortable truth: The ideologies most hostile to America and the West have arisen in what we have come to call the Muslim world. These ideologies are not just intolerant but supremacist — which is why, within the Muslim world, religious minorities face increasing oppression and, in many cases, “religious cleansing,” a trend Western governments, the U.N., and most of the media avoid discussing.

Most Muslims do not embrace these ideologies. But for a host of reasons — fear undoubtedly high among them — neither are most Muslims battling them or even denouncing them publicly and without equivocation.

There is this positive development: In the media, resistance to calling a spade a spade is, finally, breaking down. Take, for example, this recent New York Times headline: “Mali: French Troops Battle Islamists.” That’s accurate: The French have not intervened in Africa to battle “violent extremists.”

Read more at National Review

Top Iranian Cleric: Nothing Ruled Out Against America

Khatami

The regime is reportedly unified in this new tactic of showing a moderate face in order to deceive the West into reducing sanctions.

BY REZA KAHLILI:

The recognition of Israel as illegitimate is one of the principles of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, and even today the Islamic Republic believes Israel must be destroyed, a senior Iranian cleric close to the supreme leader said Saturday night.

Ayatollah Sayyid Ahmad Khatami, a member of the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — also condemned any effort for improved relations with America and warned that nothing is ruled out against the United States, according to Tasnim News Agency, a regime media outlet.

Referring to those who believe talks with the U.S. would be beneficial, Khatami said, “If we take one step back, then we have to retreat 10 steps.”

The ayatollah said that during President Hassan Rouhani’s recent trip to the United States to attend the opening session of the U.N. General Assembly, “The American politicians put out many diplomatic smiles.”

But at a meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the same time, “The American president stated that all options are on the table, including the military option. We too have all the options on the table against America, one of those a strong punch in the mouth to America, the world’s oppressor.”

Khatami said that in resolving the nuclear issue, the West “will then raise the issue of human rights, stating that women must have all the rights that men have.” He added that the holy slogans of “death to America” and “death to Israel” will never be removed and reiterated the regime’s position that Israel must be annihilated, and anyone stating otherwise is “Anti-Supreme Leader,” which carries a death penalty under the laws of the Islamic Republic.

“Even if one day there are negotiations and contact with America, our hatred for infidels and oppressors will never cease,” Khatami said. “… the end of the story by America is this, that they want us to open the way for them to come and loot this country [of its resources]. However America must know that it will take this dream to its grave.”

Read more at Clarion Project

Iranian Cleric: Women Must Provide Sex to Men at All Times

Iranian cleric Hojatolislam Hossein Dehnavi

Iranian cleric Hojatolislam Hossein Dehnavi

BY REZA KAHLILI:

A leading Iranian cleric has denounced those women who do not cater sexually to men.

Hojatolislam Hossein Dehnavi discussed the duty of women under Islam at a conference on family issues, according to Fars News Agency, a media outlet run by the Revolutionary Guards.

“One of the calamities of our society is that some women do not give authority to their husbands and this is more evident in three groups,” Dehnavi said in explaining the duties of women toward their husbands.

“The first group are those who are older than their husbands and treat their spouses like a mother would, which harms the authority of men. The second group are those who have a higher education than their husbands and because of their financial independence (they) have some attitude, which harms men’s authority.”

In referring to the third group of women, the cleric said, “One of the other duties of women in regard to their men is to take care of their men’s instinctive needs (sexual drive). Do not break their pride and (you must) be more sensitive toward them.”

Boys and girls should not meet in secluded places, Dehnavi said, and should not look at each other with lust and joy in their eyes. And girls, when speaking to boys, should not flirt.

Dehnavi, a cultural specialist for the Islamic regime’s television outlet who holds conferences on the relationships of men and women, often talks about sex in an Islamic society.

“Women have to provide sex to their men anywhere and at anytime,” he said in one released video of his speeches. “Even in her mother’s house, the woman usually refuses and says it’s bad and that her mother could find out, but they should do it and so what if her mother finds out? It won’t be bad as they are not doing anything illegal.”

In another video, Dehnavi decreed that:

  • Women commit a sin if they try to “satisfy” themselves after their husbands climax.
  • It is not a sin for a man to think about another woman while having sex with his wife. “This is the kindness of God to us Muslims that thinking about sin is not a sin (and when) some men in having sex with their wives talk about other woman, this is not a sin either.”
  • If thinking of another woman during sex results in pregnancy, “then the child will be a homosexual.”

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iranian women have been subjected to the cruelest of punishments and have had their rights taken away.

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

Muslim Brotherhood Inside American Colleges

Nazareth College in Rochester, NY, is just one of many American universities who are "partnering" with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a verified Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Nazareth College in Rochester, NY, is just one of many American universities who are “partnering” with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a verified Muslim Brotherhood front group.

By Ryan Mauro:

In 1988, an FBI informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network warned that it had a front called the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). The IIIT leadership, the source reported, said they were in the first of six phases to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” Their current objective was to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.” And they have.

The source warned that the Muslim Brotherhood in America has “unlimited funds” and has “set up political action front groups with no traceable ties to the IIIT or its various Muslim groups.” The source’s identification of IIIT as a front is verified in a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo. The Brotherhood itself lists IIIT as number 28 of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” working toward the Brotherhood’s self-defined goal, which it says is a “grandjihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

IIT’s Director of Academic Outreach from 1984 to 1994  was Sayyid Syeed, a founder and former secretary-general of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Footage from 2006 shows him saying, “Our job is to change the Constitution of America” (you can view it inThe Grand Deception).

ISNA is also identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in the 1991 memo and was labeled as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity by federal prosecutors. It was also designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation. Syeed is now the director of ISNA’s Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances.

Read more The Clarion Poject

 

The Islamist Regime’s Game Plan for Egypt

By Barry Rubin

What’s been happening in Egypt this week is as important as the revolution that overthrew the old regime almost two years ago. A new dictator has arrived and while the Muslim Brotherhood’s overturning of democracy was totally predictable, Western policymakers walked right into the trap. They even helped build it.

President Mursi has now declared his ability to rule by decree. The key concept is that he can do everything to protect the revolution. In doing so, he is defining the revolution — as the Iranian revolution of 1978-1979 which was made by a broad coalition of forces soon after became defined — as an Islamist revolution.

One could call the Islamist strategy a short march through the institutions. Once Islamists take power — in Iran, the Gaza Strip, and Turkey, perhaps too in Syria — that is only the beginning of the story. They systematically do a fundamental transformation.

The media, or at least a large part of it, is tamed. The draft constitution written by the Brotherhood and Salafists allows the government to shut down any newspaper or television station by decree. The courts are made impotent and judges replaced. Mursi’s decree said he could ignore any court decision.

At a November 18 press conference, a few days before Mursi issued his decree, the leading secular-oriented representatives in the constitution-writing constituent assembly resigned, charging the new document would enshrine Sharia law. The problem was not the statement in Article 2 about Sharia being the main source of Egyptian legislation but rather later provisions making it clear that Islamist-controlled institutions would interpret precisely what that meant. Amr Moussa, former foreign minister and Arab League secretary-general, said the new constitution would bring disaster for Egypt. Abdel Meguid called this combination “Taliban-like.”

Scattered secularist forces, Coptic Christians, liberals or the remnants of the old regime, and modern-minded women do not pose a real threat to the regime. They are not violent, not organized, and not flush with cash. They can expect no material international support. There will be no civil war between the moderates and the Islamists, the suppression of one by the other. The Salafists are itching for confrontation; the Muslim Brotherhood is patient. But when Salafists harass women or stab secularists or attack churches, the Brotherhood-controlled government will do nothing to protect the victims.

Of critical importance for Egypt is control over the religious infrastructure: the ministry of Waqf that supervises huge amounts of money in Islamic foundations; the office of qadi, the chief Islamist jurist; al-Azhar University, the most important institution defining Islam in the Muslim world; which clerics get to go on television or have their own shoes; and down to appointments of preachers in every public mosque in the country.

Many clerics are not moderate but most are not systematic Islamists. Soon they will be or at least talk as if they were. Revolutionary Islamism will become in Egypt merely normative Islam. Thus is the endless debate in the West about the nature of Islam — religion of peace or religion of terrorism? — short-circuited and made even more irrelevant. The real power is not what the texts say but who interprets them. And the Islamists will do the interpreting.

While the judges are still holding out bravely only the army has real power to counter the Islamist revolution transforming the most important country in the Arabic-speaking world into the instrument of the leading international anti-Western, anti-American, and antisemitic organization. It doesn’t matter how nicely Mursi spoke to Obama any more than say how Lenin — who moderated Soviet policy in the 1920s to consolidate the regime and get Western help — did in his day.

What is going on inside Egypt’s army, the last remaining institution that could offer resistance? We don’t really know but there are certainly some important indications. In theory, the army is the only force that can challenge the Muslim Brotherhood’s drive to transform Egypt into an Islamist state. But why should we believe the officers want to engage in such a battle?

Read more at PJ Media

Clarion Fund Releases ‘Iranium’ in Persian

Radical Islam:

The Clarion Fund’s timely and powerful documentary film, Iranium, is now available in Persian. Iranium presents the danger posed to the free world by a nuclear Iran, exposing the the radical Islamic ideology guiding Iran’s leaders and the devastation it has caused.

Persian-speaking viewers in Iran and elsewhere can access the full movie available on YouTube.com by clicking here.

The full movie can be seen in English in the video below.

In approximately 60 minutes, Iranium powerfully reports on the many aspects of the threat America and the world now face using rarely before seen footage of Iranian leaders and interviews with 25 leading politicians, Iranian dissidents and experts on Middle East policy, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

The movie is narrated by the Emmy Award-winning Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo, who recently starred in the film The Stoning of Soraya . Aghdashloo was born in Tehran, where she achieved national stardom by age 20. During the 1979 Islamic revolution, Aghdashloo left Iran for England and has since moved to Los Angeles.

Iranium answer the questions: How dangerous is a nuclear Iran, even if it never detonates a weapon? Why have American leaders failed to gain the upper hand in relations with Iran for the past 30 years? To what lengths would the regime go to carry out its agenda? How far have Iran’s leaders already gone to fund the world’s most powerful terrorist organizations?

‘Repudiate the Muslim Brotherhood’: Allen West Calls for Obama to Immediately Cut All American Foreign Aid to Egypt Following Election Results

By Madeleine Morganstern at The Blaze:

Congressman Allen West (R-Fla.) on Sunday called for President Barack Obama to immediately cut off all American foreign aid to Egypt and to denounce the results of its presidential election after Muslim Brotherhood-backed candidate Mohammed Morsi’s victory.

In a brief post on his Facebook page, West said Sunday’s results were reminiscent of the 1979 Iranian revolution that saw Islamists installed as leaders of the country.

“A year ago there were those of us who warned the Obama administration of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt,” West wrote. “We were castigated as alarmists and loose cannons. Today our predictions have come to reality and the ominous specter reminding us of the Iranian revolution is evident.”

Calling the Arab Spring “nothing more than a radical Islamic nightmare,” West said the U.S. needs to “unequivocally reiterate” its support to Coptic Christians in the region and to Israel.

“What an incredible foreign policy faux pas by the second coming of President Jimmy Carter, the Obama administration,” West said. “I call upon President Barack Obama to cut off American foreign aid to Egypt, denounce the results of this election, repudiate the Muslim Brotherhood, and all radical Islamist political entities.

 

 

Parallel Betrayals: Iranian Revolution and Arab Spring

By Raymond Ibrahim:

Many are the lessons to be learned between the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the current revolutions of the Arab world.

Consider the issue of the hijab, the female “veil”—the proliferation of which, according to one former Islamist and associate of al-Qaeda’s Ayman Zawahiri, is associated with a Muslim society’s downward spiral into oppression and terror.

Prior to Egypt’s presidential elections, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Muhammad Morsi, assured the nation’s liberals and secularists that, as president, he would certainly not enforce the hijab: “Many people are speaking nonsense, saying that I will impose the hijab against the will of the people; no one is going to force anyone to wear a specific uniform.”

These are famous words, spoken almost verbatim some 33 years earlier, in Iran, at the time of the 1979 revolution. In fact, during the early days of the revolution, Ayatollah Mahmud Taleghani, a popular mullah, to reassure the secularists who participated in the overthrow of the Shah that an Islamic government would certainly not interfere with their freedoms, declared in the March 11, 1979 edition of Iran’s newspaper, Ettela’at, that “The hijab will not be a matter of coercion.”

Front page of Iran’s Ettela’at in 1979, assuring everyone that the hijab will not be mandatory.

The rest is history. Within months of the founding of the Islamic Republic, the 1967 Family Protection Law was repealed, female government workers were made to wear the hijab, women were barred from becoming judges, sex-segregation laws were promulgated, the marriage age for girls was dropped to 13, and married women were barred from attending regular schools. Today, Iranian women are regularly beaten if they are not dressed in appropriate hijab.

The parallels between Iran and Egypt do not end there. While today it is standard to think of the 1979 Iranian revolution as a purely Islamic affair, in fact, many of the revolutionaries were secular, liberal, Marxist, non-Muslim, etc. The one goal that glued them altogether was the desire to overthrow the autocratic Shah. Many of these Iranians did not want an Islamic government, certainly not a theocracy. And indeed, not just the Ayatollah Taleghani, but the Ayatollah Khomeini himself played down Sharia’s draconian role to mobilize all these divergent segments of society—until he was fully entrenched in power, that is.

In short, the Iranian Revolution began as a heterodox affair, with different revolutionary factions and different ideological agendas, but it ended with the rise of a totalitarian Islamic republic.

Sound familiar? This is precisely what is happening today in Egypt, where the one unifying goal of the revolution was the overthrow of the Mubarak regime; where many Egyptians are secularist, liberal, Christian, etc., and certainly do not want an Islamic government; and where the Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, are busy reassuring everyone that all their freedoms will be preserved.

Based on the Iranian model and the ongoing “Arab Spring,” two lessons emerge as to how Islamists manage to consolidate power: 1) through outright lies and false promises, justified through Islamic doctrines like taqiyya and tawriya; and 2) through gradual implementation. This is how the mullahs achieved power in Iran, and this is how the Muslim Brotherhood—which is on record saying that its gradual, long-term goal is “mastership of the world“—is working to achieve power in Egypt, seen as the first domino on the road to caliphate.

Read the rest at Front Page

Michael Coren with Clare Lopez: Islamic Anti-Semitism

“But it is certainly true – if you do look at islamic doctrine, law, and scripture as written – that Jew-hatred – anti-Semitism – is intrinsic, and it is so because of the example of the muslim prophet mohammad. And it began according to the historical record with his conflict with the Jews of the peninsula, which became the Saudi peninsula.”

Iranian-Born American Writer Amil Imani Speaks Out Against Satanic Islam

By Sher Zieve at Gulag Bound:

For many years, Amil Imani has stood against the brutal and patently evil onslaught of Islam which continues to attack the population of his former country Iran–and now the world.  Early on, Amil realized the inherent dangers associated with Islam.  He and his family were able to flee the country after the Islamic revolution that was foisted upon Iran and in a recent phone conversation, Amil advised me that Iran had–culturally and historically–never been a Muslim nation until they were invaded by Islam…which was largely due to former Democrat US President Jimmy Carter  He also very correctly advises his audience that the Left and Islam are part of the same insidious cabal

Amil Imani (partial) Biography

Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He has become a formidable voice in the United States against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Imani is the author of the riveting book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and a new book Operation Persian Gulf.

Amil’s numerous articles have appeared in many newspapers and magazines around the world as well as in thousands of Internet magazines, websites and blogs. He is a regular commentator on Iranian issues on BBC World News. He is also 2010 honoree of EMET: “the Speaker of the Truth Award” at the Capitol Hill.

Sher: Thank you so much for your time, today, Amil. I’d like to jump directly into the subject matter and ask the reasons for your decision to stay in the United States after completing your education. Wasn’t it your initial plan to return to Iran?

Amil: Thank you, Sher, for having this interview with me. I left Iran in the midst of the radical Islamic revolution of 1978/79 to continue my education abroad, but never envisioned that Islamist extremists would take over our very modern and prosperous country. Most likely, I would not be alive today if I had stayed in Iran.

In 1979, the U.S. government (notably Jimmy Carter and Company), with the help of allied forces, created the greatest Islamic terrorist nation on the face of the earth and this spurred the rise of Islamofascism elsewhere. In fact, Jimmy Carter, by his interference in another country, betrayed the most valued friend to the West, the late Shah of Iran.

 Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran and U.S. President Jimmy Carter

In reality, there was not a country for me to return to. Many of my friends were either killed in Iran-Iraq war or simply disappeared for standing up for their rights. Overnight, we lost everything. My battle with the forces of darkness started when evil (Ayatollah Khomeini) landed in Iran and unleashed his wrath on thousands upon thousands of Iranians who in the beginning, believed this “holy” man was their savior. But, he turned out to be the “evil” that our ancient prophet Zoroaster had warned us about.

Ayatollah Khomeini, with his cultural revolution, intended to de-civilize a very rich and civilized nation.

For the past 33 years, the Iranian people have been kept hostage in their own county by a group of barbaric savages who despise anything Iranian and are slowly purging any remnant left of pre-Islamic Persia, as well as Persian textbooks. These pro-Arab invaders are not Iranians by any means. “Iranian” is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence. The barbaric mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians. They are Islamofascists who have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive, discriminating, and demeaning ideology.

To most Iranians, including myself, the name of the Ayatollah Khomeini was unheard of until the Western policymakers decided to remove the Shah (the best friend of the West) and install the Ayatollah Khomeini and carelessly forced the Shah of Iran to leave his homeland. After 33 years, the U.S. is still making the same mistakes with respect to its policy regarding Iran.

Sher: When we talked a few days ago, you told me that prior to Iran’s ‘Islamic Revolution’ it had never been a Muslim country and that–until recently–Islam had never truly been part of Iran’s historical and traditional culture. Before the sudden and swift rise of Islam, what were the true cultural aspects of Iran and its people?

Amil:  A quick answer: Iranians are Muslim in name only. We have a saying in Persian that the way you take your first step, points your path for the rest of your journey. To elucidate this, please allow me to elaborate and give a brief account of Islam.

Islam’s very first step was that of violence aimed at decimation of any people that stood in its path of conquest. It all started with Muhammad when his own Quraysh tribe chased him out of his hometown of Mecca. He was a troublemaker that earned the “crazed poet” epithet. He escaped from Mecca and settled in Medina where a large tolerant Jewish community lived. There he found enough peace to start his campaign of gathering a bunch of thugs with the promise of booty in this world as well as eternal pleasures of a sensual paradise if people followed his edict.

The rest is history. One of the very first things he did was to turn on the Jews of Medina – an easy and convenient target to kill, loot and enslave. Being amply rewarded for this thuggery, his followers expanded their range. To this day, the goal is the same. Destroying any and all people who refuse to surrender everything they are and have to this creed of savagery and slavery.

Nearly 1400 years ago, the followers of Muhammad from across the scorching Arabian Desert conquered Iran (Persia), the greatest empire known in the history of man. With that, they almost destroyed one of the most benevolent and beautiful religions of all humanity, Zoroastrianism, often called the mother of all revealed religions.

 Califate, 750 A.D.

Originally, Iranians were forced to accept Islam to save their lives from the Arab invaders, but deep within the heart of every single Iranian alive today, exists a burning resentment of the Arab-Islamic invasion of their homeland and culture. The events in history have toughened present day Iranians. They have become great pretenders. But the totality of 1400 years of Islamic barbarity and savagery must and will end. Iranians no longer need to pretend that they are practicing Muslims; when in fact, they are not.

Before the Islamic invasion of 1979, most Iranians were unaware of true nature of Islam. But, the 1979 Islamic invasion quickly changed that. Nowadays, masses of Iranians are irreparably alienated from a corrupt and oppressive Islamic rule. The rule of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is crumbling. The previously solid edifice, or at least the appearance of it, is finally showing many cracks that continue to grow. There are just too many fault lines to list here. Many consider this, an era of Iranian awakening or Iranian renaissance. Islam has always been in contrast with Persian values as it is evident by the glorious pre-Islamic Iranian festivities and celebrations.

Sher:  Every day now, we’re hearing more and more chatter from strategic military experts that Obama is actually planning to take the USA into a war with Iran. Others have said that he plans to affect the war this year, in order to ensure his remaining in office. What do you make of this and what, if anything, are you hearing?

 Obama in Somali Muslim garb

Amil: When you ask me about President Obama, you touch a very sore point. This man is an enigma. Every chance he gets he sings the praises of Islam. He calls it a great religion. It has been reported that some of his closest White House advisors are Muslims. At times, he seems to be a weak and indecisive politician who doesn’t seem to firmly believe in the ideals of democracy and liberty. He, as a most powerful political leader, unfortunately doesn’t always champion democracy. At best, he seems to be a strict pragmatist with a focus on the short-term results.

Some critics of Obama’s Iran policies argue that Obama’s weak stance, and his politicizing of the issue because of his 2012 re-election bid are creating a dangerous situation in the Middle East. Critics also point out that the developing Iranian crisis is due to Obama’s weak response to Iranian aggression, which has emboldened the regime. In my opinion, both assertions are accurate. Obama had a golden opportunity in 2009, to help those millions of Iranians who were shouting in the streets of Tehran “Obama: Are you with us or against us?”  President Obama decided to work against them.

What remains an enigma is this: Why did the Obama administration support regime change in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Libya but not in Iran?

Sher: We know that Obama has appointed multiple members of the Muslim Brotherhood to high levels within the US government. We also know that some–if not many–of these appointments have actually been in the area of US national security! As the Brotherhood is the parent organization of al-Qaeda and Hamas–to name only two terrorist organizations–what in the world could Obama be thinking? Do you see Obama working to establish the USA as part of the burgeoning Marxist Islamic Caliphate?

Amil: It is chancy thing to guess people’s motive. What is more telling is the person’s actions and the consequences of the actions. We see that Obama has been steering the country toward more government, greater redistribution of wealth, and more dependency on government micromanaging people instead of serving them to realize their own highest potential. Obama ‘s actions clearly show his drive to remake the U.S. into a socialist state.

As for his actions relating to Islam, we can go back and revisit in utter disbelief and watch him bow to the Saudi king, the titular head of Islamdom.

Furthermore, on numerous occasions he has spoken effusively of Islam, has allowed the mullahs to keep on racing to become a nuclear state and oftentimes berated Israel. Obama’s actions in both fronts, socialization of the country and promotion of Islam, are encyclopedic and cannot be covered in this brief statement. But, to label the president as such, to utter, “Obama is a Marxist,” is to open yourself to ridicule. People would rather dismiss than hear the truth, would rather live a lie and suffer its consequences than puncture their self-affirming facade.

We must allow all the facts, which speaks volumes: Didn’t President Obama go around the Muslim heartland and sing the praises of Islam at every stop? Didn’t he bow with great deference to the King of Islam in Saudi Arabia? Didn’t he proudly proclaim Islam as the faith of his dear and near kindred? Didn’t he, time and again, tell us that Islam is indeed the religion of peace? Didn’t he with his captivating oratory skills cite passages from the Quran to show how reverent he was toward this religion? Didn’t he appoint a raft of “devoted” Muslims to sensitive and high posts in government?

In his Cairo speech, didn’t he blatantly mislead the world on how “Islam has been a part of America from the very beginning……….” misleading again about “Islam’s magnificent history, its contributions to art, architecture, math, science etc.” Didn’t the Obama administration pull back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive? Paving the way to exonerate Islam of any wrong doing, e.g. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s jihadist directed murder of 13 U.S. service personnel at Ft. Hood characterized as ‘workplace violence’? Didn’t he eliminate traditional National Day of Prayer, yet throws a lavish dinner marking the end of Ramadan in our White House?

It is said that you can tell a great deal about people by the company they keep. And who have been President Obama’s close associates and mentors for many years, a partial list is given below and we will let people make up their own minds:

Go to Gulag Bound to read the rest of this important interview

A Brief History of the Transatlantic Counterjihad

This is the first of an eight part series on the history of the global counterjihad movement. It is an incredibly important documentary on the phenomenom of Islamization and the battles being fought internationally to stem the tide of Islamic subjugation. I urge everyone to take the time to read all 8 parts in order to gain insight on the problem, especially with regards to the threats to freedom of speech.

By the Counterjihad Collective at Gates of Vienna:

Islam over Europe, seen from orbit 

I. Introduction

Over the past few years a transatlantic political and social movement that is now commonly known as the Counterjihad has gained increasing prominence. As it became more mainstream, it attract attention from the legacy media, especially in Europe, where the debate over Islamization has made it to the pages of major newspapers.

The resistance to Islamization and sharia started long before September 11, 2001. The roots of the movement can be traced back to antiquity, since the first violent razzia against Christian civilization in the 7th century, under Mohammed and the early Caliphs. Successive jihad attacks destroyed the Christian cultures of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of southern Europe. With each wave of Islamic invasion, Europeans became aware of Islamic ideology through its deadly praxis. Popes, Patriarchs, and scholars wrote about the nature of the Mohammedan aggression, and the necessity for resistance to it. European Christians massed forces to launch Crusades in an attempt to reclaim Muslim-conquered territories in the Near East for Christendom.

Moorish Islam was expelled from Spain by the Reconquista in 1492, and the tide of the Ottoman expansion was turned back at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. For the next two centuries European civilization was ascendant, as Turkish power gradually receded and disappeared from the Balkans and Greece. Europeans were technologically superior to Islamic cultures, and became the colonial masters of Muslims in North Africa, Asia Minor, the Arabian Peninsula, the Indian subcontinent, and the archipelagoes of the Indian Ocean.

During those years the ideology of Islam ceased to matter to Europeans, and the violent and expansionist doctrines of the Koran, the hadith, and the Sunna no longer drew much attention among non-Muslims. Occasionally a European writer — most notably Winston Churchill, in The River War — would analyze the barbaric, inhumane, and imperialistic ideology of the Mohammedans. By and large, however, the menace of Islamic violence, which had been intimately familiar to millions of Europeans for a millennium, was forgotten.

All that changed when the ownership of Middle Eastern oil fields passed from European and American corporations into the hands of Muslim emirs. Suddenly the Islamic world was awash with wealth. And, for the first time in history, all that bounty became available to Muslims without the necessity of conquest and slaughter.

The reality of Islamic economic power drew the attention of the West during the oil crisis of 1974. The satraps of Muslim countries were able to put a thumb on the petroleum carotid of Western Europe and bring European political leaders to their knees. In the ensuing years, the Islamic colonization of London, Paris, Marseille, Brussels, and Rotterdam began in Europe. The first urban Islamic enclaves formed in those cities and others, becoming the nuclei of the notorious no-go zones and sharia enclaves that have metastasized for the last three decades all across Western Europe.

Among Sunni Muslims the fundamentalist revival was spearheaded by a group known as Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen, or the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood grew in popularity during the middle of the 20th century, even under official state repression by the Nasser regime. Al-Banna was assassinated in 1949, after which Sayyid Qutb took over the leadership of the group. Qutb was a prolific writer and theoretician, and his works inspired millions of Sunni Muslims throughout the Middle East and beyond. By the time he was hanged in 1966, the Muslim Brotherhood had become a formidable force in Middle Eastern politics, even though it was banned. The stage was thus set for the oil-funded Islamic revival.

The current crisis began with the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. The origins of the Counterjihad may be traced to the writer V.S. Naipaul, who was the first prominent observer to understand what was at stake, and what lay ahead. He visited Iran and other Muslim countries in the wake of the Iranian revolution in an attempt to understand the Islamic awakening. The following report, from the hinterlands of Sind in Pakistan, presents the Islamic worldview in a nutshell*:

The maulana’s [religious teacher’s] room was more enclosed than the guest house, but not less bare. He had been lying down on his string bed; he sat up to talk to me. He was turbanned and bearded, an old man, but still vigorous, and not gentle. In the late-afternoon gloom, soon made gloomier by a very weak electric bulb, in the dust and bareness of his peasant setting, he was alive with a religious passion that was like malevolence: the passion for the true faith running, as it can easily run, into the idea of Islam in danger, the need for the holy war, the idea of the enemy.

He asked me about myself and my travels. I told him I had been to Iran.

He said, “Khomeini is a good man. He is Islamic.”

“Why do you say that?” I had expected him, so orthodox and fierce, to disapprove of Khomeini’s Shia Islam as a deviation.

He said, “He has banned women from appearing on television.”

This was all that he knew of Iran since the revolution.

He said, “We don’t have an Islamic government here.”

How could he say that? The government had ordered civil servants to break off every day and say their prayers It had legislated for Koranic punishments like whipping and stoning to death. It was talking of levying a Koranic tax, to be paid out to the poor as alms. The president had just made the pilgrimage to Mecca. What more did the maulana want?

He said, “They haven’t abolished interest in the banks.” The Prophet had outlawed usury; a banking system that depended on interest was not Islamic.

What kind of banking system did he want? How did he want the financial affairs of the country to be managed?

He didn’t know. He hadn’t thought about it. But he didn’t care. He said, “If Pakistan makes money in an Islamic way, everything will follow.” He was pleased with that thought — logic was one of the subjects taught at his school — and he repeated it slowly.

He was half a politician, a man of local influence; and in his criticism of the government there was no doubt some local or personal grudge. But he was not being disingenuous; he lived by his rules. His world had shrunk to a hut in a crumbling village. He was prepared for even that to crumble away further, once the faith was served.

Mr. Naipaul was prescient in his analysis of the ideological imperatives of Islamic doctrine, anticipating the rest of us by more than twenty years. His brief account includes the Sunni-Shi’a divide, jihad, the subjugation of women, barbaric Islamic punishments, sharia-compliant finance, and Islam’s theological indifference to the material well-being of its adherents. All of these issues are now routinely highlighted by 21st-century Counterjihad activists.

The Third Wave of the Great Islamic Jihad was further inflamed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which also took place in 1979. Over the next decade the United States covertly armed and trained the Afghan mujahideen as an anti-Soviet resistance force, laying the groundwork for what eventually became the Taliban.

Islamic violence intruded more and more on Western consciousness throughout the late 1980s and 1990s. The death fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing in 1995, the African embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000: all of these served to increase public awareness of Islam’s propensity for violence, and forced Western political leaders to adjust their policies to take the new reality into account.

During these “prodromal” years in the 1990s, members of the Muslim Brotherhood quietly inserted themselves into positions of influence in federal, state, and local governments in the United Stares. Their new roles allowed them to exert subtle influence over the direction of American government policy vis-à-vis Islam. A parallel Brotherhood infiltration occurred in Western Europe during the same period, especially in cultural institutions.

These preparations left the Ikhwan fully prepared to neutralize any serious attempts by Western governments to deal with radical Islam within their societies. Brotherhood operatives developed a shrewd understanding of modern Political Correctness and Multiculturalism, which allowed them to exploit the weak spots in Western culture by invoking the shibboleths of “racism” and “xenophobia”.

Then came September 11th. Millions of people who had never paid any attention to Islam suddenly became aware of the destructive power that was inherent in its ideology. They began to educate themselves and talk to other people whose interest had been similarly awakened. They formed volunteer organizations, did research, and published articles. With the onset of blogging, anyone could contribute to the cause, and many thousands did.

Thus was the Counterjihad born.

Read the rest

2011   Nov        
        25   Part II, Conferences
        26   Part III(a), The Transatlantic Counterjihad at the OSCE
        27   Part III(b), The Transatlantic Counterjihad at the OSCE (cont.)
        28   Part IV, The Rosetta Stone Projects
        29   Part V, Official Opposition to the Transatlantic Counterjihad

Part VI, Unofficial Opposition to the Counterjihad

Part VII, Observations and General Conclusions