Boko Haram Discusses Baga Massacre, Ideology in New Video

 

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 28, 2015

The jihadist group known as Boko Haram, appears to have released a new video featuring an interview with the group’s spokesman Sheikh Abu Mus’ab Al barnawi. Regarding its recent successes in attacks on towns in the Lake Chad region Al Barnawi says:

As for it’s importance to us, it’s because of it removes that military presence from the lands of the Islamic state, and hence establish the Shariah of Allah in the region, and attain safety and security in it for Muslims. It’s known that those military complexes if they go to a place they corrupt it and injustice rules over it, and we by the Grace of Allah alone have managed to conquer this city and add it to the cities of the Islamic state in Africa.

It’s not immediately clear if Al barnawi means the term Islamic State in a generic sense, or if he is referring to the self-declared Caliphate represented by ISIS leader AbuBakr Al Baghdadi, but Boko Haram has increasingly utilized the flag and symbols of ISIS in its media presentations, and has expressed support for, if not allegiance to Al Baghdadi. In the video, Al barnawi is explicit regarding the group’s larger goals of establishing Sharia and expresses irritation at the insistence of the western media’s referring to the group as Boko Haram rather than by its official name Jama’aat Ahul Sunna wall el Daa’wa wal Jihad (Group for the Propagation of the Sunnah and Jihad). The Boko Haram spokesman also denied allegations that the group engaged in Takfirism (the practice of declaring fellow Muslims to be infidels), spending several minutes denying the claim.

We have come to give victory to AlSunna and to establish the governance of Allah on earth. As for accusing us of shedding Muslims’ blood that’s not true, and Allah is our witness. How do we fight them if we fight for their cause? When we entered the city that was what is called the stick carriers “Catodqora,” they collaborated with the armies of the false deity and carried their weapons, and stood by them. We fought who fought us, and they know they fought us, and when they saw our strength they fled the city, some by sea, some to the forests, and yet we send them this message: Who fought or didn’t fight us who comes repenting will be forgiven and we give him safety and security because we are a nation whose morals refuse to initiate harm on who doesn’t harm us.

“Stick carriers”, presumably refers to vigilante groups which have sprung up in some northern Nigerian towns in order to repulse attacks by the jihadist group. As is common in jihadist propaganda material, the focus of the group remains on the establishment of the Islamic State, and enforcement of Shariah. There are no references to corruption, disparity in oil wealth, or endemic poverty, the sorts of so-called “root causes” that drive State Department policy on Nigeria.

Video: Steve Coughlin Counterterror Training Education and Analysis

622022286
Center for Security Policy, September 13, 2012

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had a demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

 

Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law:

 

Part 3: Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law:

 

Part 6: The Boston Attack and “Individual Jihad” –  summary of key points

Bobby Jindal’s breathtaking candor, needed leadership

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (Associated Press)

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (Associated Press)

– – Monday, January 19, 2015

Today in London, Louisiana’s Republican governor said what has, to date, been the unsayable about Islam’s supremacist ideology known as shariah and the holy war, or jihad, it demands all of its adherents to engage in or support.

Bobby Jindal warned forthrightly that “A so-called religion that allows for and endorses killing those who oppose it is not a religion at all, it is a terrorist movement.”

Such straight talk has been all but absent from America’s national discourse, as politicians and the public alike have sought not to “give offense” to Muslims, or been silenced by threats of being tarred as “Islamophobes.” Grounded in reality and ever-more-warranted by the rising tide of jihadism, Mr. Jindal’s insights are creating new space for the kind of conversation that has been long overdue in this country, and the West more generally.

Indeed, it speaks volumes about the current state of this issue, as well as about the character and promise of the governor himself, that a man widely perceived to be an aspiring presidential candidate would be willing to set himself apart in this fashion and at this time. The American people are ready for the truth. They know they haven’t been getting it from either President Obama or the Loyal Opposition. And, especially in the wake of the murderous Paris attack on Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters and staff – and the teachable moment it represented about the threat shariah represents to our freedom of expression – politicians need to understand that being cowed by the jihadists is a formula for repudiation at the polls.

Now, it behooves Mr. Jindal and others, like Newt Gingrich and Joe Lieberman, who have in recent days called for a major course-correction in order to ensure that we defeat the global jihad, to offer an alternative approach. One option, which has the advantage of having been tested and proven successful against the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction, Soviet communism, has just been unveiled by the Center for Security Policy: the “Secure Freedom Strategy.”

***

Published on Jan 19, 2015 by JindalPressOffice

Also see:

 

It’s Time For The ‘Secure Freedom’ Strategy

1092263568CSP, by Frank Gaffney, Jan. 16, 2015:

A hard reality is finally sinking in across America: for a long time now – actually, for more than thirty-five years – the United States has been at war with an enemy sworn to its destruction.

It did not seek enmity or hostilities with them. Both are the product of forces that long predated the establishment of this country, to say nothing of its adoption toward the end of the 20th Century of certain policies towards the Middle East or other regions.

The enemy is the Global Jihad Movement. And it is inspired, guided, and enabled by the Islamic supremacist doctrine its adherents call shariah.

For much of this period, the U.S. government has pursued various approaches to the threats posed by that enemy – including selective military engagements, benign neglect, willful blindness, and outright appeasement. They have all shared one common denominator: They ignore the aforementioned realities and, as a practical matter, have exacerbated them.

Yet, no one has advanced a more reality-based, more practical and more effective way to counter, let alone defeat, this ideologically driven enemy.

Until now.

At the National Press Club at noon on January 16th, an ad hoc group of highly skilled national security professionals will unveil an alternative plan of action that has been proven effective in protecting us against relentlessly aggressive totalitarian ideologues in the one environment that matters: the real world. The resulting approach, called the “Secure Freedom Strategy,” is modeled after the one President Ronald Reagan successfully employed to take down Soviet communism and the Evil Empire it spawned.

The “Secure Freedom Strategy” offers a detailed prescription for a clear-eyed understanding of the enemy we confront and actionable steps for vanquishing it. Its key components include:

Understanding the Enemy’s Threat Doctrine: Having conclusively demonstrated that Sun Tse’s admonition that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t know still operates, the United States must now abandon past practice by adopting a realistic understanding of the enemy and its doctrine. That requires, in particular, clarity concerning shariah, the jihad it impels, and the various ways in which such warfare is being waged against us.

The Tiger Team makes clear that its use of the term shariah is informed by the practice of Islamic law by the recognized authorities of the faith since at least the 10th Century. (It is noteworthy that, when Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi complained publicly and courageously about the jihadist character of contemporary Islam, he did not berate so-called “radical extremists” of al Qaeda or Islamic State. Rather, he took to task the leading imams in Sunni Islam’s equivalent of the Vatican, al-Azhar University.) Such use of the term shariah, therefore, does not refer to an idiosyncratic, personal, or purely pietistic observance of Islamic law which may or may not conform to the entirety of established Islamic doctrine.

The jihadism of shariah is being advanced by both violent techniques and by means other than terrorism. We must, accordingly, be prepared to deal kinetically where necessary with the perpetrators of violent jihad. But it is also imperative that we contend no less effectively with what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – its stealthy, subversive effort to “destroy Western civilization from within…by [our own] hands.”

Establishing Our Objective: Next, the United States must enunciate a national commitment to – using a phrase President Reagan employed as the object of NSDD 75 – “contain and over time reverse” shariah-driven Islamic supremacism, including establishment of the Caliphate. The rising tide of shariah and various efforts to impose it here and abroad make abundantly clear an unalterable fact: America and, indeed, Western civilization cannot coexist with the Global Jihad Movement.

Reestablishing “Peace Through Strength”: Just as President Reagan did in his day, the contemporary hollowing out of the U.S. military must be reversed as a matter of the utmost priority. The perception of American weakness only reinforces our shariah-adherent enemies’ conviction that the time has come for intensifying jihad operations. It is also emboldening other adversaries, including Russia, China and North Korea.As the United States is not confronting simply terrorist organizations, or even their state-sponsors, but prospectively “peer competitors,” the rebuilding of American military power must be balanced across the spectrum of nuclear, missile defense, conventional and special operations forces. We must also continue to develop asymmetric capabilities (e.g., in space and cyber space) while correcting our most egregious vulnerabilities to these enemies’ asymmetric attacks (notably, electromagnetic pulse, cyberwarfare, counter-space, economic/financial warfare, smuggled weapons of mass destruction, etc.)

Counter-Ideological Warfare: As in the Cold War, America’s ability to challenge and neutralize its enemies’ animating ideology is at least as important as the task of countering their kinetic threats. Once we are clear about the nature and centrality of the shariah doctrine to the existential danger we currently face, the need for a serious and effective counter-ideological strategy becomes self-evident.Putting such a strategy into practice will require, first and foremost, identifying the Muslim Brotherhood for the explicitly jihadist organization it has always been and is now.

Continuing to treat its operatives and organizations (overt and covert) in America and overseas as “partners” because we are told they “eschew violence” is a formula for our incremental destruction. Wherever and as soon as possible, these foes should be neutralized as political forces. At a minimum, they must be denied access to U.S. government agencies, funds, arms and, via television cable packages, American household subscribers.

Intelligence Operations: We must take a page from the playbook developed during the Reagan administration by then-Director of Central Intelligence William Casey and use covert means wherever possible to counter, divide and undermine our enemies. To the traditional intelligence techniques should be added aggressive use of psychological operations, cyberwarfare and, where necessary, clandestine and special operations.

Economic Warfighting: As with the Reagan NSDD 75 plan, there must be a central economic/financial warfighting component to a new American strategy for defeating our time’s existential enemies. This component would include: constricting the principal source of revenues for the jihad – vast petrodollar transfers from Western nations to OPEC states; reversing the present practice of accommodating and even encouraging shariah finance, a technique employed by civilization jihadists to penetrate and subvert our capitalist system: and exposing shariah-inspired sovereign wealth funds as instruments of financial jihad.

Cyber Warfighting: Cyberspace is the new battlefield of asymmetric warfare where attacks across domains and technologies by the Global Jihad enemy, as well as peer adversaries, must be countered with 21st Century capabilities drawn from the best and brightest in the civilian, intelligence and military worlds.

Were these and similar policy priorities articulated by the Tiger Team to be adopted and executed appropriately, it should be possible to effect the necessary second step: the adoption by the nation of a true warfooting, a state of national commitment that will bring to bear the popular vigilance and support that will make it possible for the Secure Freedom Strategy to be fully executed.

If we are to have a prayer of bequeathing, as President Reagan put it, to our children and children’s children an America that is free – and not one that has submitted to the jihadists and shariah – we must get about the business of securing freedom in a strategic and time-tested way.

And we must begin to do it now.

Uploaded by theunitedwest

Secure Freedom Strategy v1.0

Press Release

Highlights

Executive Summary

FAQs

“Tiger Team” to unveil strategy for defeating Global Jihad Movement

3215722920Recommends Approach Reagan Used to Destroy Last Totalitarian Ideology Threat

Press release from Center for Security Policy:

(Washington, DC): Murderous attacks by Islamic supremacists in recent weeks in France, Nigeria, Australia and Canada have made obvious a fact long ignored by too many Western governments and elites:  The Free World is under assault by Islamic supremacists.

The perpetrators of this assault may have different organizational affiliations, alternative state-sponsors, divergent sectarian views about Islam or even be acting individually.  But they have two things in common:  They seek to impose their ideology or doctrine, shariah, on the whole world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. And they intend to create an alternative form of governance, often called a Caliphate to rule in accordance with shariah.

Consequently, the United States and the rest of the Free World urgently needs to identify this Global Jihad Movement as our enemy and to bring to bear an effective, counter-ideological strategy for defeating this political, supremacist shariah doctrine.

The Center for Security Policy, which prides itself on being the “Special Forces in the War of Ideas,” has sponsored in recent months an informal “tiger team” modeled after an actual special operations A-Team drawing upon individuals with unique and necessary skill sets for the mission at hand: Adapting the strategy that defeated the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction: Soviet communism.

WHO:

Participating Members of the Secure Freedom Strategy “Tiger Team”:

  • Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.), former senior Special Operator and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
  • Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and father of the Navy Red Cell counterterrorist unit.
  • Kevin Freeman, Chartered Financial Analyst and best-selling author of Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Attacked the U.S. Stock Market and Why it Can Happen Again
  • Clare Lopez, Senior Vice President Center for Security Policy for Research and Analysis and former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service
  • Dr. J. Michael Waller, expert on information warfare and influence operations
  • David Yerushalmi, Esq., co-founder and partner, American Freedom Law Center, and expert on shariah
  • Fred Fleitz, career intelligence professional who served under William J. Casey at the Central Intelligence Agency
  • Moderator:  Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting) under President Reagan

WHERE:

National Press Club
Zenger Room
529 14th St NW, 13th Floor
Washington, D.C.

WHEN:

Friday, January 16, 2015, 12:00-1:30 pm  Luncheon will be served.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who formerly acted as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under President Reagan and now is president of the Center for Security Policy said of this effort:
President Obama recently justified his abandonment of decades of U.S. policy towards the despotic regime in Cuba on the grounds that, if it hadn’t worked, it needed to be changed.  It is beyond dispute that the policy he and his predecessors have pursued towards the Global Jihad Movement, its ideological wellspring – shariah, and its sponsors and enablers is not working.  In this case, we actually must make a change.
President Reagan’s successful counter-ideological strategy, formalized in his National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 75, is one that has worked in the past.  In the professional judgment of some of America’s finest national security professionals, as adapted in the Secure Freedom Strategy, the NSDD 75 approach can work now as well, if employed decisively against today’s totalitarian ideology and its adherents.

The Absurdity of Obama’s Violent Extremism Summit

!cid_1080AF456BC942CC997E2EC6E59FC94B@DonPCCSP, by Fred Fleitz, Jan 13, 2015:

How can a summit be held on a dire threat to international security when the host refuses to acknowledge the cause of this threat?  This question will hover over the summit on violent extremism that President Obama will hold at the White House next month.

French President Hollande was unequivocal over the weekend in stating that France is at war with radical Islam and jihadism.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after participating in the massive rally in Paris on Sunday held to demonstrate unity after the attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, police officers, and a kosher supermarket, “Radical Islam is an enemy to us all.”

By contrast, Obama officials still cannot bring themselves to say “radical Islam,” “radical Islamist,” or “Islamist terrorist.”  In response to direct questions during two Sunday morning talk show interviews last weekend, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to say the United States is at war with radical Islam.

Published on Jan 11, 2015 by Truth Revolt

It was painful to watch the tortured responses by White House and State Department spokesmen yesterday as they tried to explain why the White House will not focus on the threat from radical Islam at next month’s summit.  White House spokeswoman Marie Harf told Fox News this is because “there are people out there who want to kill other people in the name of a variety of causes.”

Adding to this absurdity, the credibility of President Obama and the United States in the war on terror took a major hit by the absence of the president and any senior U.S. official at the Paris rally.

Since President Obama refuses to acknowledge that radical Islam and its dangerous shariah ideology are behind the terrorist attacks in Paris and the atrocities of the Islamic State, next month’s White House summit will be just a photo op that will further diminish American leadership in the war with radical Islam.  Hopefully other world leaders will use the summit to talk some sense into Mr. Obama about the growing threat from radical Islam and how this threat will not be defeated until U.S. officials recognize it and agree to work with Europe and other countries around the world to combat this threat.

***

Also see: 

Screen-Shot-2014-03-26-at-10.06.49-AM-620x473

Je Suis Jihad

2865661987CSP, by Frank Gaffney, Jan. 9, 2015:

In the aftermath of the murderous attack on the staff of Charlie Hebdo, the iconically irreverent French satirical journal, there is a widespread – and welcome – appreciation that the Islamic supremacist perpetrators sought not only to silence cartoonists who had lampooned Mohammed. They wanted to ensure that no one else violates the prohibitions on “blasphemy” imposed by the shariah doctrine that animates them.

In other words, the liquidation of twelve of the magazine’s cartoonists and staff – and a police officer (a Muslim, as it turns out) assigned to protect them after an earlier 2011 firebombing of its offices – was an act of jihad. Not “workplace violence.” Not antisceptic “terrorism” or the even more opaque “violent extremism.”

It was an act of violence prescribed by shariah to punish what that code deems to be a capital offence: giving offense to Muslims by caricaturing, or even just portraying pictorially, the founder of their faith, Mohammed. Unfortunately, acknowledging this reality is a practice that continues to be eschewed by governments on both sides of the Atlantic and by many in the media – even as they decry the attacks.

Therefore, it would be clarifying if, as those who profess solidarity with the fallen and their commitment to freedom of expression by declaring “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) would also acknowledge the impetus behind the perpetrators: “Je suis jihad.”

Such a step could begin a long-overdue correction in both official circles and the Fourth Estate. Both have actually encouraged the jihadists by past failures to acknowledge the reality of jihad and shariah, and by serial accommodations made to their practitioners.

One of the most high-profile and egregious examples of this phenomenon was President Obama’s infamous statement before the United Nations General Assembly in September 2012 – two weeks after he first, and fraudulently, blamed the attack on U.S. missions in Benghazi, Libya on a online video that had offended Muslims: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

This outrageous submission of the constitutional freedom of speech to shariah not only tracked with the sorts of statements one might have heard from global jihadists like al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, the Taliban’s Mullah Omar or the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was of a piece with an agenda the Obama administration had been pursuing since its inception: finding ways to satisfy the demands of another, less well known, but exceedingly dangerous jihadist group – the supranational Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

As documented in a superb film on the subject entitled Silent Conquest: The End of Freedom of Expression in the West (spoiler alert: I appear in this documentary, as do most of the preeminent international champions of freedom of expression), starting in March 2009, Team Obama began cooperating with the OIC in its efforts to use the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to impose what amounted to shariah blasphemy laws worldwide. This collaboration ultimately gave rise to UNHRC Resolution 16/18 entitled, “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to violence, and Violence against Persons based on Religion or Belief,which was adopted with U.S. support in March 2011. Despite its pretense of protecting persons of any religion or belief, the motivation behind and purpose of Res. 16/18 was to give Islamic supremacists a new, international legal basis for trying to impose restrictions on expression they would find offensive.

Resolution 16/18 is, in other words, a form of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – a stealthy, subversive means of accomplishing the same goals as the violent jihadists worldwide: the West’s submission, and that of the rest of the world, to shariah and a caliph to rule according to it.

It fell to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to try to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands. She launched something called the “Istanbul Process” which brought the United States, the European Union and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation together to find ways of giving force to Res. 16/18. On July 15, 2011, after paying lip service to the fact that, “for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy,” Mrs. Clinton announced:

We are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

The Charlie Hebdo attack is a particularly vivid reminder of what comes of such appeasement and how it encourages jihadists – pursuant to their shariah ideology – to redouble their efforts, not just through stealth but through violence, to achieve our absolute submission. If are to have any hope of preventing more such incidents in the future, let alone far worse at the hands of shariah’s adherents, we must acknowledge the true nature of these enemies and adopt a comprehensive and effective counter-ideological strategy for defeating them.

Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

Center for Security Policy, Jan. 5, 2015:

SHARIAH IN AMERICA COURTS 2.0: CENTER’S NEW CIVILIZATION JIHAD READER SERIES STARTS WITH THE PENETRATION OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM

(Washington, D.C.): Center for Security Policy Press today launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

With the bedrock of the American Republic being the U.S. Constitution and individual state constitutions derived therefrom, these analyses provide insights into how our own legal system can be – and is being – used as a mechanism to anchor and expand in this country shariah, an ideology wholly at odds with such documents and, more generally, irreconcilable with freedom and democracy.

Most Americans take the rule of law and our constitutional rights for granted. Yet, Shariah in American Courts is a reminder of how even institutions like our judiciary can be influenced – and potentially subverted – by foreign legal codes and practices, to the grave detriment of our nation and liberties.

FirefoxScreenSnapz024-697x1024This monograph also suggests that the effort to invoke shariah in U.S. courts is expanding. Worse yet, the total number of such cases is surely far larger in light of the fact that the proceedings of the vast majority of them are not published.

As the new monograph establishes, moreover, there is reason to believe that the surge in such cases is the result of the activism of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups like the Association of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA). The Brotherhood is an Islamic supremacist organization whose mission according to its secret plan (The Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America), is to “destroy Western Civilization from within.”

The good news is that, at least at the appellate level, judges appear increasingly to be rejecting the use of shariah in their courtrooms. A contributing factor to these rulings may be the rising awareness in the judiciary of what is afoot, thanks to the adoption in numerous states of legislation drawing upon a model statute known as “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC).

While the average citizen of this country would assume it to be the case that only laws derived from or consistent with our Constitution would be applied in U.S. courts at both the federal and state level, the evidence that foreign laws – including, but not limited to, shariah – are encroaching has moved legislatures across the country to act. Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Washington and Alabama have adopted ALAC’s prohibitions against the use of such foreign laws in their respective state courts if they are at odds with constitutional rights or state public policy. (Florida also enacted in 2014 a version of this legislation).

In unveiling the release of the Center for Security Press’ newest publication, the Center’s President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

The Center is delighted to be putting a spotlight on the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy, pre-violent jihad in America. It behooves each of us to become knowledgeable about the presence in our judicial system – and, for that matter, in other civil society and governing institutions – of forces seeking the destruction of our Republic.

The Civilization Jihad Reader Series is intended not only to provide factual evidence of the extent to which this attempt to destroy us from within is advancing, but what patriots can do to prevent it. We recommend as a step towards countering the subversion of our legal system the adoption by every state in the Union of “American Laws for American Courts.”

Additional monographs in the Civilization Jihad Reader Series will be published in coming months. For more information on the Center for Security Policy, the offerings of its Press and the necessity of countering the Muslim Brotherhood and its efforts to impose shariah in America, visit www.SecureFreedom.org.

Buy Shariah in American Courts at Amazon

View PDF here

British Law Society Reverses Itself on Sharia

1477927485CSP, By Kyle Shideler, November 24, 2014:

The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, has reversed its decision to publish a “Practice Note” to its members regarding how to facilitate the use of Shariah compliant wills.  The publication met a storm of criticism, leading the society to reverse itself. The Society’s president Andrew Caplen, apologized for publishing the guidelines.

Our practice note was intended to support members to better serve their clients as far as is allowed by the law of England and Wales,” said Mr Caplen. “We reviewed the note in the light of criticism. “We have withdrawn the note and we are sorry.”

Critics of the practice had warned that shariah law does not guarantee equal rights in the division of property and is discriminatory towards the rights of women, and that while written as “guidelines” Law Society Notes could become established practice as law firms feared deviating from the established procedures introduced by the Law Society. Indeed the UK government’s Solicitors Regulation Authority had included the Shariah wills Practice Law in its own guidance, before retracting it when facing criticism.

The guidelines were opposed by the National Secular Society and the One Law for All campaign.  NSS director noted the victory saying,

This is an important reverse for what had seemed to be the relentless march of sharia to becoming de facto British law. “Until now, politicians and the legal establishment either encouraged this process or spinelessly recoiled from acknowledging what was happening. “I congratulate the Law Society for heeding the objections we and others made. “This is particularly good news for women who fare so badly under sharia law, which is non-democratically determined, non-human rights compliant and discriminatory code.”

As in the United States, expressing concern regarding the application of discriminatory foreign law (including Shariah) has been routinely attacked by pro-Shariah supporters as “racist.” As Lawyers Secular Society leader Sadikur Rahman noted to the Telegraph,

“The language that they have chosen to use today is quite astonishing for an organisation that only a few months ago was resistant to change at all,” he said. He added that it was a vindication for those who were accused of racism or being anti-Muslim for questioning the wisdom of original practice note. “You should be able to criticise an ideology, that should not be taken as racism,” he said.

Rahman also pointed out that while the Lawyers Society Practice Note was not legally binding, it was being treated as an endorsement of Shariah, “I certainly heard from Muslim lawyers congratulating the Law Society for having issued it, the way they saw it was that the Law Society had come on board with sharia law.”

This same kind of incremental approach to establishing shariah law has also taken place in the United States, as noted in the Center’s 2011 publication of Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court CasesAn updated study on the topic is due out from the Center for Security Policy Press some time later this year.

SIX QUESTIONS WITH GEERT WILDERS

Slotdebat_verkiezingen_(final_debate_elections)_2006By Scott McKay:

Geert Wilders is the founder of the Dutch Party for Freedom, the fourth largest in that country’s parliament, and perhaps the Netherlands’ most controversial political figure. Wilders, whose 2008 film Fitna confrontationally opposed the encroachment of Islamic culture into Europe, has become an international figure while being prosecuted for “hate speech.” Calling himself a “right-wing liberal,” Wilders advocates curbing immigration into the Netherlands and other Western countries from Islamic nations, closing radical mosques, denaturalizing violent Muslims, and reducing the power of the European Union, among other things.

In America this week for a one-week tour, Wilders chatted with The American Spectator about Islam, the civilizational conflict, and what must be done to keep the West free.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology aiming for world domination. It wants to establish a worldwide caliphate, ruled by Sharia law — undemocratic, intolerant, barbarian, inhuman.

Terror and violence are just one method which is used in order to achieve this aim. There are other methods, such as conquest by hijra (immigration). Muhammad himself gave this example of hijra when he conquered Medina. This town, which was originally a tolerant and partly Jewish oasis, became Islamic after Muhammad and his followers settled there and took it over.

Western leaders focus solely on terrorism, but fail to see the purpose which terrorism is serving: Islamic word dominance. They should focus on fighting the global imperialist plans of Islam and treat terrorism as one of the means used to achieve this goal.

The Netherlands failed to assimilate Islam. So did the other European nations.

Western Europe is in the grip of cultural relativism. It no longer believes in the superiority of its own Western Judeo-Christian and humanist values. These Western values have brought Europe peace, prosperity, liberty, and democracy. But, unfortunately, European political leaders no longer seem to understand this.

The newcomers were not asked to assimilate. On the contrary, the Europeans told newcomers settling in their nations: you are free to violate our norms and values because your culture is just as good, and perhaps even better, than ours. Muslims were allowed to build enclaves on European soil, where Western values are despised and hated.

The Islamization of Western Europe is a direct result of this. European nations did not assimilate Islam but rather encouraged it to continue to live according to its culture, which is intolerant, inferior, and totally incompatible with Europe’s culture and civilization.

The European nations need to rediscover and reassert their identity. If Europe fails to stand up for its own culture and identity, it, will, indeed, be lost to Islam. Time is running out. Islam is assertive and aggressive. Europe should be assertive in countering Islam. Europe needs to turn the tide of Islamization and start a de-Islamization process.

Here are five things which should be done:

1) Europe should close its borders to all immigration from Islamic countries.

2) It should stimulate voluntary re-emigration;

3) and it should expel all criminals with a dual nationality to the country of their other nationality.

4) It should demand that everyone with a passport from an Islamic country, who wishes to remain living in Western Europe, sign a declaration in which he or she distances himself or herself from Sharia law and the violent commands of the Koran.

5) People who join the jihad have to be expelled, even it they only have our nationality. They can go and live in the Islamic State and no longer belong here.

Read more at The American Spectator

OIC Secretary General Warns Chicago Audience Not to Criticize Islam

sheik

Picture taken at the Chicago Club (81 East Van Buren Street, Chicago, Illinois 60605) where the Chicago Council on Global Affairs regularly holds events

Center For Security Policy:

Just a week after the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the new Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Iyad Amin Madani, addressed a select audience at an American Islamic College (AIC)-sponsored event at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. In a carefully-crafted message delivered on 17 September 2014, in which the OIC Secretary General was to discuss contemporary challenges facing the Muslim world, he charged that “Americans are not terribly famous for caring about the rest of the world.” Echoing lines promoted by the U.S. administration, Madani also declared that the Islamic State (IS) has no nexus with Islam and issued a warning to those critical of Islam. He also characterized Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza as illegal.

The AIC, known for its religious interfaith dialogue program in Chicago involving leadership figures from the Muslim Brotherhood, was established in 1981 as the only Islamic institution in the U.S. authorized to grant university degrees. Likewise, its relationship with the OIC is not a new one. In an earlier chapter of their collaborative relationship, the OIC and AIC co-sponsored a conference focused on “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for Its Relations with American Muslims” in September 2010. The following year in September 2011, the AIC and OIC joint conference Islam and Muslims in America included Obama administration appointee Rashad Hussain, the U.S. Special Envoy to the OIC. The evening before Madani’s 17 September speech, the program featured his keynote address for the AIC’s 2nd Annual Convocation Ceremony.

Prior to Madani becoming the OIC’s 10th Secretary General in January 2014, the OIC held The First International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media in September 2013 in Geneva, Switzerland to press for the criminalization of freedom of expression by individuals speaking about Islam in ways deemed ‘offensive’ and to control media content. When Iranian President Hassan Rouhani met with Madani, he, too, reiterated the OIC’s ‘Islamophobia’ conference theme as shown in his 5 February 2014 message to Twitter followers:

handshake

The OIC is an inter-governmental organization of 56 Islamic states (plus the Palestinian Authority) that represents the head of state leadership of the Muslim world and takes and implements decisions on behalf of the ummah. One of the OIC’s top agenda items is the Istanbul Process, its vehicle for pursuing insinuation of Islamic Law on slander into the U.S. and other Western legal codes. The Obama administration, including the Department of State, has eagerly promoted the Istanbul Process, as when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech to OIC on 15 September 2011. A year later, in his annual address to the United Nations on 25 September 2012 in New York City, President Obama left no doubts about his own position on the Islamic law on slander, when he told the UN General Assembly that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

As Madani warned his Chicago audience about speaking against Islam, he was only reminding them of the OIC’s 10 year strategic plan, established in 2005 in part to advocate for an anti-blasphemy law regarding Islam. About freedom of expression, Madani made clear that, for Muslims, Islam is off-limits, saying that it “should not reach religious tales…we think freedom of expression ends there.” Attempting to draw an analogy about the discussion of sensitive subjects in American society and “insulting” or “contextualizing” a religious faith such as Islam, Madani continued “You have to give the same privilege and rights to others. There are certain limits to which the freedom of speech can reach where social values of one society should be considered as human values” and that insisting on free speech about such things is a “breach of human rights.” Although left unspoken by Madani, his reference to “human rights” clearly was meant to evoke for his Muslim audience specifically and only those rights permitted under shariah (Islamic Law).

Of course, the OIC authored the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which states, “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah,” and “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

The OIC’s Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which explicitly rejects the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nevertheless was presented to and accepted by the UN General Assembly in 1993. Rather, as stated in the OIC’s charter, its member Muslim states intend “to be guided by the noble Islamic values of unity and fraternity, and affirming the essentiality of promoting and consolidating the unity and solidarity among the Member States in securing their common interests at the international arena.” 

Turning next to the recent Israeli action in Gaza, Madani addressed the audience of around ninety people at the Chicago event, attacking Israel’s inherent right to protect itself from terrorism and an existential threat. Less than two months before the Madani event, Chicago witnessed vicious antisemitic demonstrations led by HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Madani claimed that “President Abbas has compromised on everything he can compromise on. And all he is asking now is for a peace negotiation to start with defining what borders the Israelis want for their country.” Madani displayed frustration that the Israeli-Palestinian issue “will not find a fair hearing within the political process” in this country. This issue, as well, is firmly-grounded in the OIC’s charter, which states its objective“….to establish a sovereign state for the Palestinian people with Al-Quds Al-Sharif [Jerusalem] as its capital, and to safeguard its historic and Islamic character, and the holy places therein….”

The OIC Secretary General also decried what he termed “extreme pressure from the American foreign policy establishment” placed on the sixteen member countries of the United Nations Human Rights Council to not form a special session led by the OIC to investigate purported Israeli war crimes. Agitated by this matter he concluded, “The only country that voted against that was the United States of America.” In July 2014, Madani had Tweeted his disapproval of the American position on Twitter.

tweet (1)

While both the OIC and Secretary General Madani declare that Boko Haram and the Islamic State “…have no relationship with Islam,” the reality is that non-Muslims in Iraq and Syria are being slaughtered by Muslims who declare their authority derives from Islamic doctrine. The Islamic State is committed to the complete subjugation or annihilation of the Christian and other former ethnic majority people of the Middle East and eradication of their ancient historical roots in the region. Islamic State jihadis systematically are marking Christian homes with the Arabic letter “N”, which is shorthand for “Nasrani,” meaning Nazarene or Christian. The infamous triple choice of Islam – convert, pay the jizya, or die – derives directly from Qur’anic verse 9:29, and intends ultimately to make the Middle East birthplace of Christianity “Christian-rein” as, with the exception of a vibrant Israel, it virtually already is for Jews. The savage Qur’anic punishments laid out in verse 5:32-33 await all those who refuse to be dhimmis.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, the home country of OIC Secretary General Madani, is ranked as one of the top ten countries in the world regarding the most extreme persecution of Christians. The government of Saudi Arabia has banned all churches, synagogues, and temples. Not only does the government deny recognition or protection of any religion other than Sunni Islam, it prohibits the open practice of any other religion. Apostasy is punishable by death, as per shariah.

This is the ideology and world view welcomed with open doors by American Islamic College (AIC), the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and the American citizens who attended their event.

Germany’s “Sharia Police”

by Soeren Kern:

According to Burkhard Freier, the director of domestic intelligence for North Rhine-Westphalia, German Salafists are increasingly inclined to use violence to achieve their aims, and many have travelled to Iraq or Syria to obtain combat training.

“The intention of these people is to provoke and intimidate and force their ideology upon others. We will not permit this.” — Wuppertal Mayor Peter Jung.

“In Germany, German law is determinative, not Sharia law.” — Christian Democratic Union (CDU) politician Volker Kauder.

Salafist ideology posits that Sharia law is superior to all secular laws because it emanates from Allah, the only legitimate lawgiver, and thus is legally binding for all of humanity. According to the Salafist worldview, democracy is an effort to elevate the will of human beings above the will of Allah.

Muslim radicals have begun enforcing Islamic Sharia law on the streets of Wuppertal, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, the state with the largest Muslim population in Germany.

In what government officials say is a blatant challenge to the rule of law and the democratic order in Germany, groups of young bearded Islamists — some wearing orange traffic safety vests emblazoned with the words “Sharia Police” — have declared parts of downtown Wuppertal to be a “Sharia Controlled Zone.”

The self-appointed guardians of public morals have been distributing yellow leaflets that explain the Islamist code of conduct in the city’s Sharia zones. They have urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to listen to Salafist sermons and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, listening to music, pornography or prostitution.

A seven-minute propaganda video in German, entitled “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City,” shows a group of men led by a German convert to Islam, Sven Lau, roaming the streets of Wuppertal at night and pressing wayward youth to embrace radical Islam. In some instances, the men physically attempted to prevent young people from entering bars, casinos and discotheques; those who resisted were pursued and intimidated.

Sven Lau chats on the street with locals in Wuppertal, in “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City”.

After local residents alerted German authorities, police stepped up their presence in downtown Wuppertal and also established a telephone hotline to enable citizens to report any possible criminal activity.

Local authorities, however, appear uncertain about how to proceed.

Wuppertal Police Chief Birgitta Radermacher said the “pseudo police” represent a threat to the rule of law and that only police appointed and employed by the state have the legitimate right to act as police in Germany. Sheadded:

“The monopoly of power lies exclusively with the State. Behavior that intimidates, threatens or provokes will not be tolerated. These ‘Sharia Police’ are not legitimate. Call 110 [police] when you meet these people.”

Wuppertal Mayor Peter Jung said he hoped the police would take a hard line against the Islamists. “The intention of these people is to provoke and intimidate and force their ideology upon others,” Jung said. “We will not permit this.”

More than a dozen Islamists between the ages of 19 and 30 are now being investigated on charges of illegal assembly. But the men have not been arrested and police say they have no legal authority to confiscate the orange vests, even though impersonating a police officer is a crime. Wuppertal’s Public Prosecutor, Wolf-Tilman Baumert, says it remains unclear whether the men have done anything illegal. “The mere explaining of religious rules is not a crime,” he said.

The vigilantes are followers of Salafism, a radically anti-Western ideology that openly seeks to replace democracy in Germany (and the rest of the world) with an Islamic government based on Sharia law.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Al Qaeda Announces New Branch and Bid for Own Caliphate

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri

BY RYAN MAURO:

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri has announced the opening of a new branch targeting India, Bangladesh and Burma in a videotape release. He did not mention the Islamic State (formerly ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), but his announcement could be interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate Al Qaeda’s viability as it is being eclipsed by the Islamic State.

Zawahiri, who is thought to be hiding in Pakistan, said that it took Al Qaeda two years to merge its associated forces into this new branch. Tellingly, he said that the new branch, named Qaedat al-Jihad in the Indian Subcontinent (QJIS), would be loyal to Taliban chief Mullah Omar.

QJIS is led by a Pakistani commander of Al Qaeda named Asim Umar. His official position in Al Qaeda is chief of the group’s Sharia Committee in Pakistan. He is also a Pakistani Taliban commander.

Zawahiri named Ustad Usama Mahmoud as the spokesperson for QJIS.

He emphasized that the group’s goal is to “Establish sharia in the land and to free the occupied land of Muslims in the Indian sub-continent.”

The jihad is not fundamentally about territorial disputes. Indian control of Kashmir, the crackdown on Islamists by the Bangladeshi government and the dictatorship of Burma are road blocks standing in the way of this greater objective of sharia governance. Al Qaeda takes up these political causes as a means to this end.

Zawahiri called on Muslims to help QJIS create a caliphate. He describes its mission statement as “to call the ummah [Muslim world] to unite round the word of Tawhid [monotheism], to wage jihad against its enemies, to liberate its land, to restore its sovereignty, and to revive its Caliphate.”

This is an important detail. The Islamic State’s pitch is that it is an established caliphate and the one with the best chance of a success. Zawahiri is showing that Al Qaeda is also pro-caliphate and is suggesting the Indian subcontinent as an alternative starting point.

Read more at Clarion Project

Also see:

The Islamic State Is Nothing New

pic_giant_090314_SM_ISIS-FightersBy Andrew C. McCarthy:

The beheading of yet another Western journalist, Steven Sotloff, has ignited another round of commentary suggesting that the Islamic State is the worst terrorist network ever. There is value in this: The current jihadist threat to the United States and the West is more dire than the threat that existed just prior to the 9/11 attacks, so anything that increases pressure for a sea change in our Islamic-supremacist-enabling government’s policies helps. Nevertheless, the perception that the Islamic State is something new and different and aberrational compared with the Islamic-supremacist threat we’ve been living with for three decades is wrong, perhaps dangerously so.

Decapitation is not a new jihadist terror method, and it is far from unique to the Islamic State. Indeed, I noted here over the weekend that it has recently been used by Islamic-supremacist elements of the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Armyagainst the Islamic State. It was only a few years ago that al-Qaeda beheaded Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. Jihadists behead their victims (very much including other Muslims) all the time — as Tom Joscelyn notes at the indispensable Long War Journal, the al-Qaeda-tied Ansar al Jerusalem just beheaded four Egyptians suspected of spying for Israel.

Yet, the recent Islamic State beheadings, in addition to other cruelties, is fueling commentary portraying the Islamic State as more barbaric and threatening than al-Qaeda. This misses the point. The Islamic State is al-Qaeda. It is the evolution of the ruthless al-Qaeda division that grew up in Iraq under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

In order to make the Islamic State seem different from al-Qaeda — i.e., to make it seem like something that has spontaneously appeared, rather than something Obama ignored and empowered — some reporting claims there are “ideological” and “doctrinal” differences between the two. This is true in only the most technical sense, a sense that is essentially irrelevant vis à vis the West.

What is going on among the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood (including Hamas), and other factions is a power struggle for leadership of the Sunni side of the global Islamic-supremacist movement. Because of the audience to which these actors play, some of their differences are framed as sharia-based. Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda leaders (who are allied against Assad in Syria and were allied with the Islamic State until fairly recently) contend, for example, that the Islamic State’s unilateral declaration of a caliphate transgresses Islamic principles that call for consultation and consensus among sharia-adherent Muslims. They argue that Islamic-supremacist groups should work cooperatively in the formation of local or regional emirates, with an eye toward eventually assembling the global caliphate.

From our perspective, so what? Both sides regard the West as the enemy to be conquered. Their differences are germane only to the extent that sharia fidelity, in addition to sheer brute force, will determine who comes out on top in their intramural warfare. As we have been observing here for years with respect to al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood, their disputes are mostly tactical; their splits on the finer points of Islamic-supremacist ideology bear only on how they regard each other. When it comes to the West, both see us as the enemy — and they put aside their differences to attack us.

The same has also always been true of the ideological/doctrinal divide between Sunni and Shiite jihadists. For example, al-Qaeda has had cooperative and operational relations with Iran since the early 1990s. Iran collaborated with al-Qaeda in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack that killed 19 U.S. airmen; probably in the 9/11 attacks; certainly in the aftermath of 9/11; and in the Iraq and Afghan insurgencies. Al-Qaeda would not be what it is today without state sponsorship, particularly from Iran. The Islamic State might not exist at all.

The point is that al-Qaeda has never been anything close to the totality of the jihadist threat. Nor, now, is the Islamic State. The challenge has always been Islamic supremacism: the ideology, the jihadists that are the point of the spear, and the state sponsors that enable jihadists to project power. The challenge cannot be met effectively by focusing on one element to the exclusion of others.

Read more at National Review

 

Mr. Cameron, It’s Called Shariah

woman-straining-carrying-book-of-sharia-lawCSP, by Frank Gaffney:

British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday warned that his country needs new counter-terrorism tools to confront a threat currently assessed as “severe.”

Mr. Cameron described “the root cause of this threat” as “a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism that believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a mediaeval state.”

But then, the Prime Minister showed why Britain faces this threat.  He added, “We should be clear that this has nothing to do with Islam.”

In fact, the “poisonous ideology” is known as shariah.  And, while many Muslims don’t follow it, the authorities of Islam do.

Unless and until we stop blinding ourselves to this reality and protect Western freedoms and values against shariah, we are doomed.

Also see:

What is Shariah and What Are It’s Sources?

Key Tenets of Shariah