Support For Al Qaeda Terrorists Was Preached At New England’s Largest Mosque

MA Senator Liz Warren and Boston Mayor Martin Walsh greet Al Qaeda terrorist supporter Imam Abdullah Faaruuq at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center on December 11, 2016.

MA Senator Liz Warren and Boston Mayor Martin Walsh greet Al Qaeda terrorist supporter Imam Abdullah Faaruuq at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center on December 11, 2016.

Daily Caller, by Ilya Feokistov, January 16 2017:

Speaking at an interfaith event at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) in mid-December, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren told a crowd of 2,600: “Now is a time when we must be willing to say loud and clear there is no room for bigotry anywhere in the United States of America — none.”

Ironically, the very room at the largest mosque in New England where she was making her speech has been the site of some of the most vicious religion-driven bigotry in Boston. A newly unearthed video reveals that when the politicians leave and the media cameras are no longer rolling, the ISBCC mosque serves as a forum for supporters of convicted Al Qaeda terrorists who use the mosque to call for jihad against America and demand that Muslims fight to bring this nation “to its knees.”

On September 24, 2011, the ISBCC hosted an event, titled, “Reclaiming Power and Protecting Our  Communities,” which featured families of several convicted terrorists and Islamist hate preachers, who accused the Obama administration of a broad conspiracy to falsely convict and imprison American Muslims as part of a general war against Islam. Among the examples given at the at the ISBCC event were no fewer than twenty-two U.S.-based individuals convicted of material support for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and several other designated terrorist groups.

Among these were Tarek Mehanna, whose brother spoke at the ISBCC event, Aafia Siddiqui, Tarik Shah, whose mother spoke at the event, Ehsanul “Shifa” Sadequee, whose sister spoke at the event, Yassin Aref, four leaders of the Holy Land Foundation, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, Syed Fahad Hashmi, whose brother spoke at the event, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, Sami Al Arian, Ziyad Yaghi, the North Carolina Seven, of whom Ziyad Yaghi was a part, and Mohammed Warsame.

All of these individuals have been sentenced to decades in prison for terrorism-related felonies. Their crimes and sentences are detailed in the links on their names.

After asking whether there were any law enforcement officers in the audience and insisting that no one tapes the event, the ISBCC speakers launched into extended tirades against the United States. The sister of Shifa Sadequee, sentenced to 17 years for material support to Lashkar-e-Taiba (the Pakistani terrorist group behind the Mumbai Massacre) denounced “the violence of the US government” for prosecuting her brother. “This community is under siege in all facets of its existence,” claimed the brother of Ziyad Yaghi, who got 15 years for trying to provide military equipment to Al Qaeda. “It’s become marginalized or criminalized to be Muslim in America right now.  Why do I say this?  I say this because of the various cases [of prosecuted terrorists] that you see on the wall.”

This topic was personal for ISBCC leaders. The mosque has had a long and intimate connection with several of the convicted terrorists who were defended and praised at the event. Among them is the founder of the Islamic Society of Boston, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, sentenced to 23 years for moving funds to Al Qaeda. In fact, since 9/11, thirteen leaders and worshippers at the ISBCC and its sister mosque in Cambridge have been either imprisoned, killed by law enforcement, or declared fugitives from the law because of their support for terrorism.

The major focus of the event, however, was the plight of two particular prominent worshippers at the Islamic Society of Boston: Tarek Mehanna and Aafia Siddiqui. An ISBCC preacher named Abdullah Faaruuq, who spoke at the event, told the audience that he was a close friend and mentor to Mehanna and Siddiqui.

Read more

Ilya Feokistov is Director of Research, Americans for Peace and Tolerance

Video: Bill Warner Speaks at ACT Cleveland 5 Dec 2016

Published on Dec 7, 2016 by KRoseVideo

From ACT For America – Cleveland, Ohio Chapter:
=======================================
“I am pleased to invite you to come and hear our next guest, Dr. Bill Warner. He is considered by CAIR to be one of the top Islamophobes in the country. Now consider the source, LOL!

Dr. Warner is a renowned national and international speaker on the topics of Islamic doctrine and history.

Dr. Warner will explain quite clearly how and why Mohammed’s success began with migration. The Islamic calendar is based on Mohammed’s migration, the Hijra. Islamic migration is the beginning of Sharia and Jihad.

Here’s more of Dr. Warner’s Bio:

Dr. Bill Warner has been a physicist, businessman and professor. He is the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He is the first person to use the scientific method to produce a Koran that can be easily understood.

Dr. Warner made the other two sacred texts of Islam, the Sira, Mohammed’s biography, and the Hadith, his Traditions, simple to read and understand. He has written a dozen books on Islam. His Sharia Law for Non-Muslims is an international best seller.

Dr. Warner developed the first self-study courses on Islam — The Foundations of Islam and a three level training-A Self-Study Course on Political Islam, that explains Islamic political doctrine.”
======================================
see: http://www.politicalislam.com

maxresdefault-11

Identifying the Threat

maxresdefault-1-868x488AIM, by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons

On 13 December 2016, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer received the prestigious Freedom Flame Award presented annually by the Center For Security Policy (CSP) for his unswerving commitment to freedom and democracy. The CSP is headed by Frank Gaffney, who has been a staunch voice in promoting freedom and democracy for the Western world, but also for Israel which finds itself in a sea of hostility.

Gaffney and the dedicated team of professionals at CSP, in their fight to protect our Constitution, have always put principle foremost in their efforts. This fact was recognized by Ambassador Dermer in his acceptance remarks. Separately, Ambassador Dermer was criticized by the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for accepting the award because the SPLC considers Gaffney and the CSP to be anti-Muslim.

What SPLC principally objects to is the CSP’s exposure of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) penetration in all of our government agencies including the White House. This should be of great concern to all Americans since the MB creed is to destroy America from within (Civilization Jihad) by our own miserable hands and replace our Constitution with the seventh century draconian Islamic “Shariah Law.” This point is not debatable, since facts supporting this claim were introduced as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial in 2008 in Dallas, Texas. Two principal MB front groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were designated (among others) as un-indicated co-conspirators in that trial. The Obama White House frequently uses these two MB front groups to deflect any linkage of Islam to terrorist acts.

Ambassador Dermer then went on to address how, in his view, the main terrorist threat we face today, what he called is “militant Islam.” This was more than surprising as it implies that there is some “non-militant” or “moderate” version of Islam. While it is true that all Muslims do not adhere to the scriptures in the Quran, there is only one Islam; one doctrine; one Islamic law (Shariah); and one scripture–the Quran!

Muslims do not consider Islam a religion but more “a complete way of life.” Furthermore, according to that doctrine, the law and scriptures in the Quran, as affirmed by all senior scholars of Islam since the 10th century, jihad (warfare against non-Muslims per Islamic law) is obligatory for all Muslims. This is true for all time until the world is dominated by Allah (Q 8:39).

Many Western leaders have failed to comprehend the supremacist hostility of Islamic doctrine and are delusional to the point that they believe that there is some version of Islam that can co-exist with Western values. They are quick to point out that not all Muslims are terrorists. True, Muslims are individuals and some will be more devout or faithful or obedient than other Muslims. But that doesn’t matter because it has no bearing whatsoever on the core doctrine of Islam which includes the obligation to support jihad. Therefore, even though individual Muslims may be fine upstanding human beings, friendly, and embracing our culture, that has no bearing on the core principles of Islam.

All four major schools of Sunni Islam and the principal Shiite one are in agreement about all major elements of Shariah, including death for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality and sometimes slander. They also all agree on the commitment to jihad, Jew-hatred and Islamic supremacism. Jihad on the part of both Sunnis and Shiites has continued non-stop since Muhammad led the migration (hijra) to Medina in 622 A.D. Therefore, what we are witnessing today in Europe and here in the U.S. is nothing more than the continuation of the jihad launched by Muhammad following the hijra. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1838, “Jihad, holy war, is an obligation for all believers….The state of war is the natural state with regard to the infidel….These doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran….The violent tendencies of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them.” Amen! Jihad is not something unique to the 20th or 21st century. It has only been suppressed when confronted resolutely by both political and military force.

While President al-Sisi of Egypt, speaking before all the leading Sunni clerics at al-Azhar University, called for a reformation of Islam on 1 January 2015, unfortunately, his call has no standing with the leading Sunni clerics. He is viewed by them as a political/military leader, not a scholar or jurist of Islam. In fact, it may be said that Islam already has been through three major “Reformations”: these were led by the 1st Caliph Abu Bakr in the Ridda—or Apostasy—wars; Ibn Wahhab in the 1700’s; and now the Islamic State and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whose name tells you whom it is he emulates. These reformations have been more in the sense of “purification and returning to Mohammad’s true intent” than making Islam compatible with Western values.

Until it is understood by Western leaders that Islam is a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination, masquerading as a religion, we will not be successful in defeating this threat. The current migrations to America and Europe must not only be stopped but reversed. Islam cannot coexist with Western values and must be confronted resolutely, both politically and militarily.

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. Lyons is a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.

‘Real Housewives of ISIS’

real-housewives-of-isis

Geller Report, By Pamela Geller – on January 4, 2017

The BBC created a short video designed as a fake trailer for a show parodying Real Housewives – ‘Real Housewives of ISIS.’

I, for one, do not think it funny. Not for the reasons that Muslims and leftists don’t. Leftists and most especially Muslims don’t think it’s funny because they see it as mocking Islam and many support the work of ISIS. Insulting, mocking or criticizing Islam is punishable by death which is why I have been targeted for assassination multiple times by devout Muslims.

I don’t think it’s funny because the oppression, subjugation, misery, and slaughtering of millions to impose Islam across the world is happening now. The blood in Istanbul still stains the streets. Berlin, Nice, San Bernardino, Paris, Copenhagen, Orlando, Ohio State, Garland, NYC, Jerusalem, Brussels, Munich, Nairobi, etc — it’s too fresh, the flesh and the bone.

And yes, while Charlie Chaplin was funny and phenomenal as Hitler in The Dictator, his film was a warning in 1940. And Hogan’s Heroes was funny because we had already won the war.  But the films of the mid-forties about the Nazis were dead serious and rightly so. America was in the thick of it then just as ewe are now. And like the Europe is really in the throes of war.

I guess we should applaud the BBC for evening attempting such a thing because they are as much the problem as the ideologies they protect — jihad and sharia. Still it is something.

WATCH: LEFTISTS AND MUSLIMS HAVE MELTDOWN AFTER BBC AIRS PARODY ‘REAL HOUSEWIVES OF ISIS’

The Rebel, January 4, 2017:

The BBC did something no one expected and amusingly mocked the Islamic State and women who travel to Syria in a clip from their show Revolting.

The short video is designed as a fake trailer for a show parodying Real Housewives. There’s actually some fun shots thrown at Islamists, feminists, and the religion of Islam itself. It’s borderline politically incorrect, which means it’s way funnier than anything the CBC has ever done.

However, some on the left don’t like this one bit. On Facebook Aftab Bashir wrote, “Let’s make satire about British soldiers being killed in Iraq and let’s ridicule their widows and children coz its all a bit of a laugh ain’t it.”

In a follow up comment, Ebrahim Dar-wa said, “Funny for non Muslims but we don’t take this as a joke. Even though ISIS is made up by the West a lot of views are based on religion so this is attacking Islamic values.”

Another user, Hannah Berry wrote, “How about instead of putting in the money to make this you could actually send the money out to help those suffering in places like Allepo.”

More Muslims whined saying “Disgraceful and distasteful. The BBC is normalising Islamophobia through comedy” and “So a show depicting hijab wearing women as terrorists. How do you think this will help the Muslim women living in west suffering daily attacks from ignorant, hateful people? This is really sick.”

While these may seem like minority Muslim opinions, you’d be surprised. A poll released last year found that 23 per cent of British Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law. And that’s not all. 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband.

Propaganda THEN and NOW

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, January 4, 2017:

On January 5, 1919 Germany’s National Socialist Party (NAZI) formed as the German Farmers’ Party. When the Nazi party took over power in Germany in 1933, Adolf Hitler created the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment under the rule of Joseph Goebbels.

The Nazi’s ability to turn public opinion through its control of the media, film, education, and the like gave it momentum inside Germany to do much of its work to prepare for war and brutally slaughter the “unwanteds” inside that nation.

How does a nation get to the point it is willing to allow millions to be killed in the ways the Nazis did?

It begins with propaganda.  The Nazis and Communists were masters of propaganda.  And so are the leaders of today’s Islamic Movement.

In the war of narratives, the Islamic Movement seeks to present the image that the “moderate” muslims are a much better option than the violent jihadis of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, et al, thus driving American leaders into the arms of “suit-wearing jihadis” with whom they can and do work.

The problem is that both sides are hostile enemies of the United States.

The enemy’s success in the propaganda/information campaign can easily be identified by the fact that 15 years after 9/11/01 America’s leaders still think there are different definitions of “jihad” in Islamic Law (sharia) – one of the many results of a long propaganda campaign by our enemy.  This particular one pounds the drum stating the “Islam means ‘peace’.”

It is a matter of fact that ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America), MAS (Muslim American Society), MSA (Muslim Students Association), MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), and many other Islamic organizations are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in the United States with the mission of waging “civilization jihad” to destroy western civilization and replace our government with an Islamic government.

It is a matter of fact that CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is a Hamas organization, meaning it is a terrorist organization, and it is a fact that CAIR’s leader, Nihad Awad, is the driving force behind the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here.  Awad created the USCMO (U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations) comprised of many of the prominent Muslim Brotherhood organizations with him, Nihad Awad, at the head (functionally if not practically).

And these are the organizations behind the major propaganda operations in America today.

The following is a mere sampling of propaganda/information operations currently underway inside the United States:

coexist2

Campaign:  “COEXIST” bumper sticker.

Details:  Produced, in part, by International ANSWER, a hard-left organization whose “Steering Committee” was created 3 days after 9/11 and includes the National Muslim Students Association.

Purpose:  Moral relativism.  To show Islam is no different from Judaism or Christianity and simply wants to “coexist” (not assimilate) with the rest of society.

muslim-day

Campaign:  Muslim Day at State Capitals

Details:  Sponsored by Hamas (dba CAIR).  This is a day when muslims flood state capitals to, in their words, “meet state legislators, discuss issues of concern and help bring about positive social change.”

Purpose:  A show of force and intimidation at state capitals to give the impression muslims can win or lose elections for state legislators, and therefore, state legislators should submit to their demands.


Campaign:  Paid trips to Saudi Arabia for Members of Congress.

Details:  Saudi Arabia and their representatives take Member of Congress overseas to Saudi Arabia on 10 day trips to show legislators how “progressive” the Kingdom is towards business and other parts of its society.

Purpose:  To show Members of Congress a facade of the true Saudi Arabia so they have a favorable impression of the nation and will be softer on their actions when legislative matters involving the Kingdom arise.  It pits those who speak factual truth about Saudi Arabia’s support for terrorism, sharia, and anti-American efforts against the Congressmen’s newfound personal experience in the Kingdom.

The same campaign exists at the state level for trips to Turkey sponsored by Turkish Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as the Turquoise Foundation, Holy Dove Foundation, and others.

myjihad

Campaign:  “My Jihad”

Details:  This series of videos, billboards, signs, and advertisements produced by Hamas (dba CAIR) shows muslims sharing about their various forms of jihad – doing their homework, helping others, and other such things.

Purpose:  To give the impression that jihad is defined as anything but “warfare against non-Muslims” to establish the power of Islam despite the fact all Islamic law defines it as such.


Campaign:  After “terrorist attacks” Americans should be most concerned with “backlash” against muslims

Details:  Following attacks against U.S. citizens by muslim jihadis, leaders from the Islamic community speak on television telling America they fear for their lives because of the constant backlash against them from non-Muslims despite the fact FBI information reveals this phenomenon does not exist.  U.S. Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, who wore a hijab during the Olympics, publicly stated, “I don’t feel safe in America.”

Purpose:  To get our law enforcement, national leadership, and citizens to focus on protecting the Muslim community instead of the seeing that the problem is IN the Muslim community.

 

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-2-04-56-am

 

Campaign:  Interfaith Outreach/Family of Abraham

abra

Details:  Primarily led by ISNA and ICNA, the Interfaith Outreach movement targets churches and synagogues of all denominations to come together under the belief that Judaism, Christianity and Islam share one God and three Abrahamic faiths.  They adjust their message for Catholics, protestants, and other denominations to get the message to strike home more effectively.

Purpose:  To subvert religious institutions which are the backbone of American society. It should be noted that by the very fact Christian organizations engage in interfaith outreach with the Muslim Brotherhood, they have to surrender their core doctrinal beliefs to meet muslims at a place which often puts them in positions of heresy.  This furthers the MB’s broader strategy of destroying the non-muslim citizens’ faith in their religious leaders.


Campaign:  Muslim Jewish Advisory Council

Details:  Formed by the AJC (American Jewish Committee) and ISNA, this organization purports to be designed to fight Islamophobia and anti-semitism.  It should be noted that in the US v HLF, the U.S. government identified ISNA as the “nucleus” of the Islamic Movement in North America and a financial support entity for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization which calls for the destruction of Israel.

Purpose:  To further subvert the Jewish community, and its leadership around the narrative that both Jews and Muslims are being persecuted.  The muslim intent is for Jewish leaders to protect the Muslim community from the kind of persecution similar what happened to Jews in Germany during World War II.  It appears to be working as many Jewish leaders and organizations in America today openly support and defend Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leaders and organizations – the very people who seek their destruction.

shariah_billboard

Campaigns:  Sharia / Islam: Got Questions? Billboards.

Details:  Billboards around the United States have been used to promote Sharia and Islam and give citizens a means to ask questions.  These campaigns, as many of the billboards openly state, are sponsored by ICNA.

Purpose:  To normalize Islam and Sharia in our society in preparation for Islam to rule our society under Sharia.


Campaign:  Control Hollywood’s Depiction of Muslims in Film and Television

Details:  Hamas (dba CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affair’s Council (MPAC) in Los Angeles work diligently to ensure muslims are only portrayed in a positive light in both TV shows and film.  They have strong-armed producers, even before films were in production, based on the scripts.  One example: “Sum of All Fears” – storyline was originally muslim terrorists but, because of pressure from CAIR, the antagonists were portrayed as Nazis in the film.

Purpose:  To ensure Americans only see Islam in a positive light and to keep the factual teachings of Islam – “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them…” (Koran 9:5) – from ever coming to light.


Campaign:  Amazon commercial with Priest and Imam

Details:  Amazon released a commercial just prior to Thanksgiving Day 2016 depicting an older priest and imam hugging each other and sharing time together as close friends.  They both use amazon.com to purchase gifts each other (knee pads) to make it easier when they pray.  The commercial ends with the two praying in their respective places of worship using their knee pads.

Purpose:  This commercial was made in partnership with Amazon, ICNA, and the MCB (Muslim Council of Britain).  Since the MCB is one of the top two largest MB organizations in Britain, and ICNA is part of the MB Movement in North America, we know there is a nefarious purpose for this commercial.  The Muslim Brotherhood does not do willy nilly.  This commercial is meant to affect long-term attitudes in the West with regards to relations with the muslim community.  It portrays the Islamic culture as being relatively the same as Western culture and easy to get along with, completely ignoring the diametrically opposed ways of life between the two.


Campaign:  Islamophobin Gum

Details:  Hamas (dba CAIR) created a gum and a campaign to back it up which is humorously supposed to cure Islamophobia.

Purpose:  To ostracize anyone who speaks truth about Islam and to make it easier for people to accept the growing influence of Islam in our society.

These are but a few examples of the propaganda being poured out onto American society today.

To be clear, easily identified enemies of the United States are behind these propaganda campaigns, and many others. With a large percentage of U.S. media supporting the jihadis in the United States, there is no major counter-messaging to this nonsense.

Propaganda is necessarily made up of lies.  Truth is the only answer.

Only citizens armed with the truth about what Islam is can defend our society from the growing cancer of Islam here, and reach out in wisdom and love to free muslims from a system which necessarily enslaves them.

For more truth, join UTT at http://www.UnderstandingtheThreat.com.

Inside the Minds of Orthodox Muslims

islam2

Citizen Warrior, January 3, 2017:

The following are excerpts from an article in The Week entitled, Inside the Minds of Jihadis. It is a book review:

As with any enemy, the best way to defeat the Islamic State is to understand it. And to do that, the best place to start is a new book by Graeme Wood, The Way of the Strangers. This book gives us the best insight yet into what makes the Islamic State tick.

Wood, a national correspondent at The Atlantic and lecturer in political science at Yale, spent years from the streets of Cairo to London to the Philippines to Australia, interviewing supporters of the Islamic State and getting inside their heads. What results is a series of gripping, fascinating portraits. Wood’s subjects have little cageyness towards him. Since everything is foreordained by Allah anyway, revealing your plans to a Western journalist won’t change the outcome. Plus, Wood has the talented journalist’s skill for interview and observation. He’s an astute psychologist and a good writer to boot…

The book’s implicit thesis, one which is both inarguably true and persistently denied by so many decision makers in the West, is that ideas have consequences. While the motives of any individual and group of people are always multifaceted and almost always include a good helping of interest-seeking and self-delusion, it is also impossible to deny that large sections of Islamic State members and supporters, from its leadership down to foot soldiers, make decisions on the basis of what they believe.

As the Islamic State keeps repeating over and over through its high-polish propaganda apparatus, it has a theology, and this theology has content, and an internal logic, that can be understood on its merits. Once this theology is understood, and once the proponents of this theology are actually listened to, and their actions watched, it becomes impossible to deny that this theology is a key cause (maybe not the cause, but a key cause) of the actions of the Islamic State, most of its leaders, and most of its supporters.

What’s more — and this is the source of the willful blindness of elite policymakers and commentators towards the Islamic State — this theology does have Islamic roots…

All Muslims agree on at least one thing, which is that Muslims should follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad. And the Prophet Muhammad did do many of the things that the Islamic State is most reviled for, such as waging absolute religious warfare, engaging in slavery, stoning adulterers, and so forth…

It’s a great read. But more importantly, Wood’s book reveals truths about ISIS that are hiding in plain sight — but that our leaders make themselves willfully ignorant of. They ought to read his book, too.

Read the whole article here: Inside the Minds of Jihadis

U.S. Islamist Group: Fake Friendship with Non-Believers

Sheikh Waleed Basyouni is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA)-Fatwa and Research Committee and the Director of Texas Dawah Convention. He is pictured here giving a speech titled "Reclaiming Islam from the Extremists."

Sheikh Waleed Basyouni is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA)-Fatwa and Research Committee and the Director of Texas Dawah Convention. He is pictured here giving a speech titled “Reclaiming Islam from the Extremists.”

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, January 2, 2017:

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, an influential group that issues fatwas (Islamic religious declarations), teaches Muslims that they “are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly but never inwardly.”

The 2009 fatwa , which was originally brought to our attention by John Rossomando of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, cites Islamic scripture in its directive that Muslims must not befriend a non-believer over a Muslim except as a form of deception in response to a possible danger.

See the fatwa below:

amja-fatwa-taqiya-inside

AMJA has a history of extremist fatwas and sermons, including teaching that Hamas is not a terrorist group and ruling out offensive jihad against the U.S. only as a matter of pragmatism. You can read more about their background here.

Because AMJA doesn’t get in front of the cameras or maintain a high profile, it is often overlooked as part of the Islamist network in the U.S., but its influence should be taken seriously. In 2014, it trained 200 imams at its conference in Texas. Last year’s imams’ conference was in Chicago, as will 2017’s.

Its leadership council also spearheads Islamic online universities in the U.S. Its fatwa committee includes clerics with positions in Washington, D.C., Michigan, Minnesota and Texas.

AMJA’s list of “our experts” and list of members includes Islamist clerics from across the country, including top leaders from the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, Al-Maghrib Institute, the North American Imams Federation, the Muslim Association of Virginia and various mosques. The lists also include many international clerics, even though AMJA presents itself as an American organization.

The group’s influence can be seen behind efforts undertaken by the more publicity-hungry Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group that the Justice Department identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front that deceptively casts itself as a “moderate” civil rights group.

When I was booked to give educational counter-terrorism training to law enforcement in California, the San Diego chapter of CAIR responded aggressively, going so far as to compare my training of law enforcement officials to having the leader of the KKK teach police about black people. The CAIR official leading the charge had only months earlier traveled all the way to Chicago to attend AMJA’s imams’conference.

AMJA can serve as a window into the Islamist strategy. The extremism of AMJA is so clear that it cannot effectively operate in the limelight, so it stays away. Instead, the so-called “moderates” that serve as experts go in front of the cameras to wage their jihad against Islamism’s enemies.

When they speak, the official titles they have with their primary “moderate” organizations are used. But they are part of AMJA’s network even though few know it and the affiliation won’t show up in a byline in an article or interview. All it takes is using a different title and the AMJA member is never held accountable for the group’s radical fatwas.

However, these people must be held accountable. No genuine Muslim reformer will join AMJA. If a cleric involved with AMJA is positioning himself as an unobjectionable moderate to unbelievers, he is following his group’s radical fatwa.

Our Responsibility to Criticize Islam

The Flight into Egypt by Vittore Carpaccio, c. 1515 [National Gallery, Washington, DC]

The Flight into Egypt by Vittore Carpaccio, c. 1515 [National Gallery, Washington, DC]

The Catholic Thing, by William Kilpatrick, December 28, 2016:

A Commonplace has emerged among media and political elites that criticism of Islam or even of radical Islam will only serve to drive moderate Muslims into the radical camp.

That argument should be questioned because it can just as easily be that lack of criticism has led to the rebirth of militant Islam. Far from being critical of Islam, Western governments, media, academia, and even churches have bent over backward to claim that all the atrocities committed in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, the Western media have adopted a rigid system of self-censorship that keeps them from admitting that these atrocities are in fact committed in the name of Islam.

The latest example is the reporting on the assassination of a Russian ambassador by a Turkish policeman. Almost the first words out of the assassin’s mouth after the shooting were: “We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on jihad.” If you don’t remember him saying that, it’s because that part of the statement was omitted from almost all news and television reports. Apparently, our betters in the media were afraid that if we were aware of the man’s devotion to Muhammad, we might say something provocative that would turn untold numbers of peaceful Muslims into bomb-throwing jihadists.

Perhaps the prime example of the wages of silence is the current crisis in Europe. Islamic terrorists have declared war on Europe and the result has been a series of deadly attacks – at airports, subways, cafés, concert halls, and, most recently, Christmas markets. All this mayhem is the indirect result of ignorance about Islam – an ignorance that, in turn, is the result of an almost complete blackout of news unfavorable to Islam.

Anyone with a thorough understanding of Islamic culture and religion could have predicted that, even without the 2015-16 flood of Muslim migrants, the steady flow of Muslim immigrants over the years would create a combustible situation. The amazing thing is that the consequences of this massive migration were never discussed – except in glowing terms. Just about the only thing allowed to be said about the migrants was that they would solve labor shortages, refill welfare coffers, and bring cultural enrichment to Europe.

That was the official line. Anyone who deviated from it could expect censure, possible job loss, or even a criminal trial. Say something negative about Muslim immigration on your Facebook page and you would be visited by police. Say it in public and you would receive a court summons. It didn’t matter if you were a famous writer (Oriana Fallaci), the President of the Danish Free Press Society (Lars Hedegaard), or a popular member of the Dutch Parliament (Geert Wilders). If you couldn’t say something nice about Islam, then you shouldn’t say anything at all.

In the European case, the idea that criticizing Islam will create an army of radicals doesn’t hold up. Criticism of Islam is essentially a crime in many parts of Europe and has been for a long time. In Europe, few dared criticize Islam, but the radicals came anyway. More than anything else, it was silence that allowed Islamization and radicalization to spread through France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Practically no one spoke up about no-go-zones, sharia courts, polygamy, and forced marriages, refusal to integrate, crime waves, and the rape epidemic. Now that many are finally beginning to speak out, it may be too late to avoid capitulation (Sweden’s likely fate) or bloody conflict (more likely in France).

The very argument that criticism of Islam will drive moderates into the radical camp suggests that criticism is needed. If Islam is such a hair-trigger religion that the slightest offense might radicalize adherents, there is something radically wrong with the religion itself. We don’t worry that criticizing Catholicism is going to produce angry Catholic mobs rampaging through the streets. We don’t fear that one wrong word is going to cause a young Southern Baptist to strap on a suicide belt.

Islam invites criticism. Given its bloody past and present, it would be highly irresponsible not to subject it to a searching analysis and critique. Such a critique would not aim at alienating Muslims (although some will inevitably be alienated), but at alerting likely victims of jihad.

One of the basics that non-Muslims need to know is that Islam divides the world in two – the House of Islam, and the House of War (all non-Islamic societies). And every Muslim is expected to do his part to make the House of War submit to the House of Islam. Europeans are now experiencing a “don’t-know-what-hit-me” sense of bewilderment because they never learned this basic fact about Islam.

One reason for our reluctance to analyze and criticize Islam (an idea) is that such criticism seems tantamount to criticizing Muslims (a people). Unfortunately, even if that is not the intention, it is often the result. A person can’t separate himself entirely from his beliefs, and, consequently, we take criticism of our religion personally. That’s a good reason for presenting the critique as tactfully as possible. But it’s not a good reason for offering no critique at all.

If you can’t criticize a belief system because it would hurt the feelings of people who subscribe to that system, then we were wrong to criticize Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism. Ordinarily, we refrain from criticizing other religions. Such a live-and-let-live approach is generally sensible, but when the other religion takes the attitude that you must either convert, submit, or die, then live-and-let-live is no longer an option. That is the position that we are in with regard to Islam. And it is suicidal to pretend that things are otherwise.

New Year Speech to the Muslim World

Gatestone Institute, by Nonie Darwish, January 1, 2017:

  • By Western standards, military rule is shunned as an oppressive form of government, but in the Islamic world it is the only buffer of protection from the tyranny of total sharia law that must be enforced by Islamic theocracies, such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
  • The days of sacrificing the safety and security of citizens of the West for the sake of multiculturalism, are over. In order for multiculturalism to work, it must be a two-way street between people that share common values of respect of each other’s culture. Unfortunately, the West did not get that from Islam.
  • It really does not matter what is “true Islam”. That is something the Muslim world needs to deal with internally; it does not serve us in the West to try to evaluate what is “true Islam” and what is not.
  • Your religious leaders, whose salaries are paid by Islamic governments, stand before your media cameras and call on Muslims to stab, slam trucks, kill, rape and humiliate the kafir [non-Muslim] Jews, Christians and Pagans.
  • Islamic governments and terror groups are two peas in a pod, working together for the same goal: enforcing Allah’s law, sharia, on the world. It is no secret that a Muslim head of state must rule by sharia and must conduct jihad against non-Muslims. Sharia law commands Muslim citizens to remove, by rebellion or assassination, any Muslim leader who does not abide by sharia and support jihadists.
  • As of today, the West must hold Islamic governments responsible for jihadist actions of their own terrorist citizens. Nothing happens in Muslim countries without the knowledge of their governments. If a Muslim government has no control of its citizens, it should be considered a rogue nation.
  • Bringing in unvetted refugees from Syria and Iraq is not an act of compassion, but gross negligence. Western governments have failed their citizens for too long in that respect and that will end today.
  • After all, why should cultures that loathe the West seek to live in the West? As President-elect Trump said, why should America — or any country — not allow in only immigrants who love us and who respect our laws and way of life?
  • Our doors will be reopened to citizens from Islamic nations only when Islamic governments prove to the world that they have fundamentally changed, that they have ended once and for all their obsessive jihadist propaganda and hate education prevalent in the Muslim world.
  • Until then, all kinds of visas from such troubled areas will be suspended, except for the few who would be properly vetted. Such actions will surely expedite the reformation of Islam and Islamic education in Muslim nations who are desperate to give us their excess unhappy population.

Obama’s first major speech after his election in 2008 was to the Muslim world in Cairo. His speech did not deal with the harsh realities of Islam and its impact on world peace. No Muslim authority shook Obama’s hand promising change, a new relationship with the West based on mutual respect, or a reflection on what went wrong on 9/11, even if they were not directly responsible for it. No Arab leader publicly announced an end to the Islamic jihadist and anti-Western hate education and Arab media propaganda. Instead, the Muslim world got an apology from Obama.

After Obama left Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood was empowered, and military rulers weakened and brought down one after another. By Western standards, military rule is shunned as an oppressive form of government, but in the Islamic world it is the only buffer of protection from the tyranny of total sharia that must be enforced by Islamic theocracies, such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Muslim Brotherhood and then ISIS quickly filled the vacuum and the Muslim world is now on fire.

Obama’s first major presidential speech, on June 4, 2009, was to the Muslim world in Cairo. His speech did not deal with the harsh realities of Islam and its impact on world peace. No Muslim authority shook Obama’s hand promising change, a new relationship with the West based on mutual respect, or a reflection on what went wrong on 9/11. (Image source: White House)

A huge storm of Islamic darkness, spilling over and sweeping across our planet, headed towards the West. Let us never allow our freedoms, built by generations of Americans, be lost to fear and terror. It is time for the West to unite and send a firm message to the Muslim World — a message that should have been sent by Obama back in 2009.

With the election of President-elect Donald J. Trump, citizens of the West have renewed their hope to make America again the leader of the free world and human rights for all, as should be. Trump hopefully will rally leaders of the free world to give a firm message to the Muslim world:

The days of sacrificing the safety and security of citizens of the West for the sake of multiculturalism, are over. In order for multiculturalism to work, it must be a Two-Way Street between peoples that share common values of respect of each other’s culture. Unfortunately, the West did not get that from Islam. America, Europe and Australia have been the safe haven of people from all over the world — different nationalities, religions and races. We love the Muslim people as we love all people but our love to people of the world should never supersede our number one duty, which is to protect of our citizens, our freedoms, our way of life, and yes, our Biblical-based, Judeo-Christian values.

Today the Middle East is on fire, overrun and ravaged by terrorists and extremists who have no respect for their own governments or law and order. Groups such as ISIS and others brought back ancient barbarity that humanity had mistakenly thought it had transcended. We keep hearing that this has nothing to do with Islam and that Islamic terrorists are just a small number of misguided Muslims who misinterpret true peaceful Islam.

But now it is our turn to tell you what is on our mind: It really does not matter what is true Islam and what is not. When a terrorist plows through a crowd with a truck aiming to kill, the last thing anyone cares to hear is whether “the driver was a true Muslim or not”. That is something the Muslim world needs to deal with internally; it does not serve us in the West to try to evaluate what is “true Islam” and what is not.

Middle Eastern governments-run schools still teach hate propaganda against the West, Jews and Christians. They still teach their children lies such as that Yasser Arafat died from poisoning by Jews. They still teach in their public schools that jihad is a holy war against non-Muslims; that killing apostates and honor killing of girls is a duty under Islamic law and those who do it will not be prosecuted, but will be rewarded with virgins by Allah. Muslim Imams spread their hatred and incitement right under the noses of the so-called moderate Muslim leaders, on your government-run television screens. Your religious leaders, whose salaries are paid by Islamic governments, stand before your media cameras and call on Muslims to stab, slam trucks, kill, rape and humiliate the kafir [non-Muslim], Jews, Christians and Pagans.

We have done enough appeasing and looking the other way when it comes to the dirty little secret that no one wants to admit: that Islamic governments and terror groups are two peas in a pod, working together for the same goal: enforcing Allah’s law, sharia, on the world. It is no secret that a Muslim head of state must rule by sharia and must conduct jihad against non-Muslims. Sharia law commands Muslim citizens to remove, by rebellion or assassination, any Muslim leader who does not abide by sharia and support jihadists. The world understands the plight of Islamic leaders who must fulfill their sharia obligation before their Islamists, otherwise they are “toast.” Solving this problem is not the responsibility of the West, but it is a major problem that the Muslim world must address in the open and deal with.

While Muslim people and governments develop the courage openly to settle their issues over their jihad duty, the unholy alliance game played by Islamic governments and terror groups must be exposed for what it is, and emphatically rejected. The West cannot afford to participate in such a dishonest game anymore.

As of today, the West must hold Islamic governments responsible for jihadist actions of their own terrorist citizens. Nothing happens in Muslim countries without the knowledge of their governments. If a Muslim government has no control of its citizens, it should be considered a rogue nation. Islamic nations that continue to breed terrorists in their media, schools and mosques and then act innocent of the crime must be held accountable. Muslims themselves have no tolerance for one Western cartoonist who offended them with a cartoon of Muhammad. Instead of saying that this cartoonist does not represent all Western nations, the Muslim public rioted, burned and killed several Westerners and their embassies in retaliation for the actions of one, over a cartoon. That is from the same nations that flooded the world with terrorists that use airplanes, guns, explosives, knives and even trucks to kill non-Muslims. Muslims need to live by the saying “If your house is of glass, do not throw rocks at others.”

Any Western nation that does not protect its own citizens first and foremost should be a pariah among civilized nations. Bringing in unvetted refugees from Syria and Iraq is not an act of compassion, but gross negligence. Western governments have failed their citizens for too long in that respect and that will end today.

It would be insane for Western governments not to use extraordinary measures for self-preservation. The doors of immigration to Muslim citizens from nations overrun by terror will be closed. After all, why should cultures that loathe the West seek to live in the West? As President-elect Trump said, why should America — or any country — not allow in only immigrants who love us and who respect our laws and way of life?

Absorbing refugees from terror run Syria is not only bad for the West, but also for Syria. If we take the moderate Muslims out of Syria, then who will be left to fight ISIS and rebuild the country?

Our doors will be reopened to citizens from Islamic nations only when the war on Islamic terrorism is won and when Islamic governments prove to the world that they have fundamentally changed, that they have ended once and for all their obsessive jihadist propaganda and hate education prevalent in the Muslim world. Until then, all kinds of visas from such troubled areas will be suspended, except for the few who would be properly vetted. Such actions will surely expedite the reformation of Islam and Islamic education in Muslim nations who are desperate to give us their excess unhappy population.

We are looking forward to the day when moderate Muslims will be able to take control of their governments, their educational systems, and their law and order, so the Western world could resume mutual constructive relations based on friendship and respect. The whole world is looking forward to that day and praying for a peaceful Middle East. The ball is now in the Muslim world’s court.

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values.”

Does Trump Grasp the Reality of ‘Radical Islam’?

radical-islamNational Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, December 31, 2016:

It was the key national-security debate of the 2016 election. Donald Trump won the election, in no small part, because he appeared to be on the right side of it. Appeared is used advisedly: Trump was at least in the general vicinity of the bull’s-eye; his opponent wouldn’t even acknowledge the target existed — except in the most grudging of ways, and only because Trump had forced the issue.

The question boiled down to this: Are you willing to name the enemy?

After a quarter-century of willful blindness, it was at least a start. We should note, moreover, that it’s a start we owe to the president-elect. Washington, meaning both parties, had erected such barriers to a rational public discussion of our enemies that breaking through took Trump’s outsized persona, in all its abrasive turns and its excesses. Comparative anonymities (looking down at my shoes, now) could try terrorism cases and fill shelves with books and pamphlets and columns on the ideology behind the jihad from now until the end of time. But no matter how many terrorist attacks Americans endured, the public examination of the enemy was not going to happen unless a credible candidate for the world’s most important job dramatically shifted the parameters of acceptable discourse.

Trump forced the issue into the light of day. And once he did — voilà! — what was yesterday’s “Islamophobia” became today’s conventional wisdom. In reality, it was never either of these things. The former is an enemy-crafted smear (a wildly successful one) to scare off examination of the enemy; the latter is frequently wrong.

What we Cassandras have really been trying to highlight is a simple fact, as patent as it was unremarkable from the time of Sun Tsu until the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: To defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy — who he is, what motivates him, what he is trying to achieve. Being willing to name the enemy is a start. But it is just a start — the beginning, not the end, of understanding.

In his major campaign speech on the subject, Trump asserted that the enemy is “radical Islamic terrorism.” Terrorism, surely, is the business end of the spear, but “radical Islamic terrorism” is an incomplete portrait. Dangerously incomplete? That depends on whether the term (a) is Trump’s shorthand for a threat he realizes is significantly broader than terrorism, or (b) reflects his actual — and thus insufficient — grasp of the challenge.

The speech provided reasons for hope. For one thing, Trump compared “radical Islamic terrorism” to the 20th-century challenges of fascism, Nazism, and Communism. These were ideological enemies. The capacity to project force was by no means the totality of the threat each represented — which is why it is so foolish to be dismissive of today’s enemy just because jihadist networks cannot compare militarily to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, toward the end of his speech, Trump used “radical Islamic terrorism” interchangeably with “radical Islam.” Ending the spread of radical Islam, he said, must be our objective. He even referred to it as an “ideology” — though he called it an “ideology of death,” which misses the point; it is an ideology of conquest.

Trump intimated some understanding of this, too. He vowed to “speak out against the oppression of women, gays, and people of different faith [i.e., non-Muslims].” He promised, in addition, to work with “all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East.” The objects of radical Islamic oppression are targeted because of ideological tenets that call for dominion by sharia, Islam’s ancient totalitarian law. It is those tenets that reformers are trying to reform.

In sum, Trump showed signs of awareness that there are more than bombs, hijacked planes, weaponized trucks, and jihadist gunmen to confront. Still, his focus was terrorists — specifically ISIS, which he claimed was created by Obama-Clinton policy. While he clearly knows there is more to the threat than ISIS, he explicitly added only al-Qaeda and “Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah.”

To the contrary, ISIS is a breakaway faction of al-Qaeda that existed before Barack Obama came to power. Hamas, though certainly supported by Shiite Iran, is a Sunni terrorist organization spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood. More crucially: All of the groups Trump listed, and the regimes that sponsor them, were created by the ideology. While I’ll go with “radical Islam,” the ideology is more accurately described as “sharia supremacism” — alas, in the parts of the world Trump was talking about, “radical Islam” is not so radical. It is the ideology that creates jihadist groups and regimes, not American policy, no matter how clueless and counterproductive our policy has been at times.

If ISIS and al-Qaeda disappeared tomorrow, other jihadist networks would take their places. It will be that way until sharia supremacism is discredited and marginalized.

That is a tall order, not to be underestimated. The audience in which the ideology must be discredited is not Western; it does not share our value system — our sense of what is credible and meritorious. Plus, the sharia that our enemies strive to implement (i.e., “jihad in Allah’s way”) is undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture. It will not be easy — it may not be possible — to discredit a literalist construction of Islam that has been backed by revered scholars for 14 centuries.

That is why some detractors of Islam argue with considerable force that we should stop mincing words: If the problem is rooted in Islamic doctrine, they contend, then the problem is Islam, not “radical Islam.” Yet this overlooks significant facts. There is fierce intramural Islamic debate about doctrinal interpretation. Our own Judeo-Christian experience tells us that doctrine and religious practice can evolve. Belief systems, moreover, are ultimately about more than doctrine. Culture counts for a great deal. Yes, sharia supremacism is pretty much the same wherever you go (and becomes more aggressive and threatening as its adherents increase in number); but the understanding and practice of Islam varies from Riyadh to Cairo to Kabul to Ankara to Jakarta to Tirana to London.

There is, furthermore, an on-the-ground reality of much greater moment than theological infighting: A large percentage of the world’s approximately 1.6 billion Muslims reject sharia supremacism. Many of them provide us with essential help in fighting the enemy. To condemn Islam, rather than those who seek to impose Islam’s ruling system on us, can only alienate our allies. They are allies we need in an ideological conflict.

The sensible strategy, therefore, calls for supporting the Islamic reformers President-elect Trump says he wants to befriend. That would be an epic improvement over outreach to Islamists, whom our government has inanely courted and empowered for a quarter-century. To the extent we can (and that may be limited), we should support the reinterpretation of what Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi courageously acknowledged as “the corpus of texts and ideas that we [Muslims] have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible” even though they are “antagonizing the entire world.”

Sisi, it is worth noting, is a devout Muslim who knows a lot more about Islam than Barack Obama and John Kerry do. In any event, it’s better to confront with open eyes the scripturally rooted ideological foundation of radical Islam. As we’ve seen over the last three presidential administrations (or the last six, if you want to go back to Carter and Khomeini’s revolution), pretending that the ideology does not exist, or that it represents a “false Islam,” is fantasy. As a national-security strategy, fantasy is a prescription for failure.

It has been the Obama prescription, right up to the end.

While candidate Trump was demanding that the enemy be named, and me-too Hillary was thus goaded into the occasional mention of “jihadists,” Obama tried to defend his refusal to invoke radical Islam. The defense was classic Obama. Part One was flat wrong: “There’s no religious rationale,” he maintained, that would justify” the “barbarism” in which terrorists engage — something that could only be right if we ignore scripture and adopt Obama’s eccentric notion of “religious rationale.” Part Two drew on Obama’s bottomless supply of straw men: “Using the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” he lectured, will not make the terrorist threat “go away” — as if anyone had claimed it would.

The point, of course, is not that there is talismanic power in uttering an enemy’s identity. It is to convey, to the enemy and to an anxious American public, that our leader comprehends who the enemy is, what the enemy’s objectives are, and what drives the enemy to achieve them.

Obviously, Obama is too smart not to know this. After eight infuriating years, I am beyond trying to fathom whether his intentional gibberish masks some misguided but well-meaning strategy, some dogma to which he is hopelessly beholden, or something more sinister. The imperative now is to address the mess he is leaving behind, not unwind how and why he came to make it.

This week, Obama betrayed our Israeli allies by orchestrating (and cravenly abstaining from) a U.N. Security Council resolution. As I’ve explained, the ostensible purpose of the resolution is to condemn the construction of Israeli settlements in the disputed territories of East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria that Israel has controlled since 1967; the real purpose is to declare that those territories are sovereign Palestinian land, and thus that Israel is “occupying” it in violation of international law (“international law” is the gussied-up term for the hyper-political, intensely anti-Israeli Security Council’s say-so).

What does this have to do with our enemy’s ideology? Everything.

The Palestinians and the Islamist regimes that support them frame their struggle against Israel in terms of Islamic obligation. Hamas, the aforementioned Muslim Brotherhood branch that has been lavishly supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and other Muslim governments, is more explicit about this than its rival for Palestinian leadership, Fatah. But both are clear on the matter. They take the doctrinal position that any territory that comes under Islamic control for any duration of time is Islam’s forever. (That’s why Islamists still refer to Spain as al-Andalus and vow to retake it, notwithstanding that they lost it half a millennium ago.)

Further, radical Islam regards the presence of a sovereign Jewish state in Islamic territory as an intolerable affront. Again, the reason is doctrinal. Do not take my word for it; have a look at the 1988 Hamas Charter (“The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement”). Article 7, in particular, includes this statement by the prophet Muhammad:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, “O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” . . . (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Understand: Al-Bukhari and Muslim are authoritative collections of hadith. These memorializations of the prophet’s sayings and deeds have scriptural status in Islam. Hamas is not lying — this story of an end-of-times annihilation of Jews is related, repeatedly, in Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., here.) And please spare me the twaddle about how there are competing interpretations that discount or “contextualize” these hadith. It doesn’t matter which, if any, interpretation represents the “true Islam” (if there is one). What matters for purposes of our security is that millions of Muslims, including our enemies, believe these hadith mean what they say — unalterable, for all time.

Even after all the mass-murder attacks we have endured over the last few decades, and for all their claptrap about respecting Islam as “one of the world’s great religions,” transnational progressives cannot bring themselves to accept that something as passé as religious doctrine could dictate 21st-century conflicts. So, they tell themselves, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is simply about territorial boundaries and refugee rights. It could be settled if Israel, which they reckon would never have been established but for a regrettable bout of post-Holocaust remorse, would just make a few concessions regarding land it was never ceded in the first place (conveniently overlooking that East Jerusalem and the West Bank are disputed territories, and were not “Palestinian” when Israel took them in the 1967 war of Arab aggression).

Transnational progressives see Israel as intransigent, notwithstanding its many attempts to trade land for peace. They rationalize Palestinian terrorism as the product of that intransigence, not of ideology. Thus their smug calculation that branding Israel as an “occupier” of “Palestinian land” in gross “violation of international law” is the nudge Israel needs to settle. This will effectively grant the Palestinians their coveted sovereign state. Thus accommodated, Palestinians will surely moderate and co-exist with Israel — if not in peace, then in the same uneasy state in which Parisians coexist with their banlieues and Berliners with their refugees.

It is not just fantasy but willfully blind idiocy. No one who took a few minutes to understand the ideology of radical Islam would contemplate for a moment a resolution such as the one Obama just choreographed.

Under Islamic law, the Palestinians regard all of the territory — not just East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria but all of Israel — as Muslim territory. Furthermore, they deem the presence of a Jewish-ruled state on that territory as anathema. A Security Council resolution that declares Israeli control of the disputed territory not merely an “obstacle to peace” but illegitimate tells the Islamists that their jihad has succeeded, that non-Muslim powers accede to their sharia-based demands. It can only encourage them to continue their jihad toward their ultimate regional goal of eradicating the Jewish state. After all, Mahmoud Abbas has stated his racist terms: Not a single Israeli will be permitted to reside in the Palestinian state. As Islamists see it (and why shouldn’t they?), Obama’s reaction was not to condemn Abbas; it was to appease Abbas. As Islamists see it, Allah is rewarding their fidelity to Islamic doctrine; of course they will persevere in it.

We are not merely in a shooting war with jihadists. We are in an ideological war with sharia supremacists. Mass murder is not their sole tactic; they attack at the negotiating table, in the councils of government, in the media, on the campus, in the courtroom — at every political and cultural pressure point. To defeat jihadists, it is necessary to discredit the ideology that catalyzes them. You don’t discredit an ideology by ignoring its existence, denying its power, and accommodating it at every turn.

President Obama never got this. Will President Trump?

In his campaign, Trump made a welcome start by naming the enemy. Now it is time to know the enemy — such that it is clear to the enemy that we understand his objectives and his motivation, and that we will deny him because our own principles require it.

The new president should begin by renouncing Obama’s Palestinian power-play: Revoke any state recognition Obama gives the Palestinians; defund them; clarify the disputed (not occupied) status of the territories; move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem; reaffirm the principle that the conflict may only be settled by direct negotiations between the parties; and make clear that the United States will consider the Palestinians pariahs until they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, stop indoctrinating their children in doctrinal Jew-hatred, and convincingly abandon terrorism.

That would tell radical Islam that America rejects its objectives as well as its tactics, that we will fight its ideology as well as its terrorism. This is not just about restoring our reputation as a dependable ally. Our security depends on it.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

MB/Hamas Orgs in Chicago Using Interfaith Outreach to Surveil Churches

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, December 20, 2016:

After UTT published it’s article yesterday (12/19/16) revealing Muslims are conducting pre-operation surveillance in American churches, UTT was contacted by law enforcement, intelligence sources and others.

From these discussions it was revealed that members of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC) are using interfaith outreach with Christian churches and Jewish synagogues for the purpose of (1) studying them internally to determine how to best influence their congregations to soften them towards Islam, and (2) to conduct pre-operational surveillance of the churches and synagogues.

chicago-interfaith

Law enforcement officials are aware CIOGC is tied directly to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, and is heavily influenced by Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

It is UTT’s professional opinion the Executive Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, is the Muslim Brotherhood’s General Masul – the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

The CIOGC is considered by some in the Chicago community as a “moderate” organization working to “bring the community together.”  In fact, they are using and manipulating non-Muslim religious leaders to intentionally weaken their positions so Muslims will have an easier time controlling public opinion and the opinion of the Christian/Jewish congregations so when violence strikes the Christians and Jews will rely on – not break from – the jihadis posing as friends.

ciog-interfaith

An example of how this will work here in America is the killing of a Catholic priest in France in July 2016. Muslims killed the priest during Mass, and within days, Christian and Jewish leaders were standing arm in arm with the leaders of the jihadi muslim community who support jihad and killing priests.

Exactly the objective of the efforts of the Islamic leaders.

Relatedly, UTT also received reports Monday confirming other churches in the U.S. are experiencing similar episodes as described in UTT’s article about churches being surveilled by Muslims.

UTT stands ready to assist church leadership to provide consultation, briefings, and training.

Because of the increased threat to U.S. churches, UTT has changed it fee for programs in churches, and for the time being will conduct briefings for churches on the Islamic threat for a significantly reduced rate. Please contact us at info@understandingthethreat.com for more information.

On a day when a muslim Turkish policeman assassinated the Russian Ambassador to Turkey and two muslims plowed a truck into a crowded Christmas market in Berlin, Germany killing at least 12 and wounding approximately 50 others, American religious leaders need to get attentive quickly and face the wolf inside their house.

Europe: Illegal to Criticize Islam

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, December 12, 2016

  • While Geert Wilders was being prosecuted in the Netherlands for talking about “fewer Moroccans” during an election campaign, a state-funded watchdog group says that threatening homosexuals with burning, decapitation and slaughter is just fine, so long as it is Muslims who are making those threats, as the Quran tells them that such behavior is mandated.
  • “I am still of the view that declaring statistical facts or even sharing an opinion is not a crime if someone doesn’t like it.” – Finns Party politician, Terhi Kiemunki, fined 450 euros for writing of a “culture and law based on a violent, intolerant and oppressive religion.”
  • In Finland, since the court’s decision, citizens are now required to make a distinction, entirely fictitious, between “Islam” and “radical Islam,” or else they may find themselves prosecuted and fined for “slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith.”
  • As Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” There are extremist Muslims and non-extremist Muslims, but there is only one Islam.
  • It is troubling that Western governments are so eager to crack down on anything that vaguely resembles what has erroneously been termed “Islamophobia,” which literally means an irrational fear of Islam.
  • Considering the violence we have been witnessing, for those Westerners who have studied Islam and listened to what the most influential Islamic scholars have to say, there are quite a few things in Islam of which one legitimatelyought to be fearful.

Several European governments have made it clear to their citizens that criticizing European migrant policies or migrants is criminally off-limits and may lead to arrest, prosecution and even convictions. Although these practices constitute police state behavior, European governments do not stop there. They go still farther, by ensuring that Islam in general is not criticized either.

Finland is the European country most recently to adopt the way that European authorities sanction those who criticize Islam. According to the Finnish news outlet YLE, the Pirkanmaa District Court found the Finns Party politician, Terhi Kiemunki, guilty of “slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith” in a blog post of Uusi Suomi. In it, she claimed that all the terrorists in Europe are Muslims. The Court found that when Kiemunki wrote of a “repressive, intolerant and violent religion and culture,” she meant the Islamic faith.

During the trial, Kiemunki was asked why she did not make a distinction between Islam and radical Islam. She replied that she meant to refer to the spread of Islamic culture and religion, and that she “probably should have” spoken of radicalized elements of the religion instead of the faith as a whole. Kiemunki was fined 450 euros. Her lawyer has appealed the verdict.

Kiemunki issued a press release after the verdict, in which she said:

“I am still of the view that declaring statistical facts or even sharing an opinion is not a crime if someone doesn’t like it… I wrote that I don’t want our country to be overtaken by a culture and law based on a violent, intolerant and oppressive religion.”

According to YLE, she added that her essay did not generalize about Muslims, but pointed out that not all Muslims are terrorists. “In these times, specifically in the recent past and today, all of the perpetrators of terrorist acts have turned out to be Muslim,” she said.

In Finland, Terhi Kiemunki, a Finns Party politician, was found guilty by a court of “slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith.” (Image source: YouTube video screenshot)

So in Finland, since the court’s decision, citizens are now required to make a distinction, entirely fictitious, between “Islam” and “radical Islam,” or else they may find themselves prosecuted and fined for “slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith.” As Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” There are extremist Muslims and non-extremist Muslims, but there is only one Islam.

It is a pity that Kiemunki did not present the court with quotes from the Quran, such as, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them…” (9:5), and “So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah.” (8:39). Perhaps, then, the court could have at least tried to explain to the public in more concrete detail the differences between “Islam” and “radical Islam.”

In the Netherlands, a state-funded hotline, run by the anti-discrimination bureau MiND, said that it could not act on a complaint about death threats against homosexuals posted to an online forum, in which the Muslim poster called for homosexuals to be “burned, decapitated and slaughtered.” The reason why this anti-discrimination watchdog group could not act on the complaint was that, “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character.” MiND concluded that the remarks were made in

“the context of a public debate about how to interpret the Quran… some Muslims understand from the Quran that gays should be killed… In the context of religious expression that exists in the Netherlands there is a large degree of freedom of expression. In addition, the expressions are used in the context of the public debate (how to interpret the Koran), which also removes the offending character.”

So, while Geert Wilders was prosecuted in the Netherlands for talking about “fewer Moroccans” during an election campaign, a state-funded watchdog group says that threatening homosexuals with burning, decapitation and slaughter is just fine, so long as it is Muslims who are making those threats, as the Quran tells them that such behavior is mandated. This might be one of the most astounding examples of voluntary submission to sharia law in the West thus far.

A spokesman for the MiND hotline later admitted that, after “further research” on the issue, it had concluded that the complaint had been “unjustly assessed” — after Dutch MPs called for the hotline to be stripped of public funding.

In February 2016, a Danish district court found a man guilty of making statements on Facebook that the court found to be “insulting and demeaning towards adherents of Islam.” The man had written:

“The ideology of Islam is as loathsome, disgusting, oppressive and as misanthropic as Nazism. The massive immigration of Islamists into Denmark is the most devastating thing to happen to Danish society in recent history.”

He was fined for “racism.” The High Court subsequently overturned the verdict in May 2016. The court found that the man was in fact innocent of racism, as his statements were “directed at the ideology of Islam and Islamism.”

It is troubling that Western governments are so eager to crack down on anything that vaguely resembles what has erroneously been termed “Islamophobia,” which literally means an irrational fear of Islam. Considering the violence we have been witnessing, it would be irrational not to have fear of its threats. As Shabnam Assadollahi recently pointed out in an open letter to Canadian Members of Parliament, there are quite a few things in Islam of which one legitimatelyought to be fearful.

All these governments need to do is consult the speeches of one of the most influential living Islamic scholars of Sunni Islam, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi hosts one of Al Jazeera’s most popular programs, Sharia and Life, which reaches an estimated 60 million viewers worldwide. Already in 1995, Qaradawi told a Muslim Arab Youth Association convention in Toledo, Ohio, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through the sword, but through dawa [outreach].”

Dawa, the Islamic call to conversion, is the Islamic summons for the non-violent conquest of non-Muslim lands, including Europe. As explained by Qaradawi in a recording from 2007, the aim of the conquest consists mainly the introduction of sharia law. According to Qaradawi, sharia law should be inserted gradually, over a five-year period in a new country, before implementing it in full. This sharia law includes chopping off hands for theft; killing apostates and homosexuals, denigrating and oppressing women, as in polygamy, beating them as a means of “disciplining” them, and so on. For those Westerners who have studied Islam and listened to what the most influential Islamic scholars have to say, there is quite a bit to be “phobic” about. It would be refreshing to hear the views of European leaders and courts on these aspects of sharia law instead of their almost ritual condemnations of those who have actually studied Islamic sources and seek to raise awareness of the nature of sharia law.

While prosecuting and sanctioning people who criticize Islam is becoming more common in Europe, this practice used to be reserved only for Muslim countries officially governed by sharia law, such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, where it is forbidden to insult Islam.

It is a pity that European courts and other state bodies have begun taking their cues from Islamic law. Apparently, European judges and politicians are no longer capable of appreciating the immense freedoms that used to be the norm on the continent, and which they seem all too willing, of their own free will, to abolish.

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

***

Are Mosques Muslim “Churches?”

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, December 11, 206:

“But is the mosque only for prayers?  No.  The mosque is the center for all Islamic activity as it used to be in the mosques of the Prophet in Medina.  In these mosques, not only prayers took, place, but it was a school of knowledge where companions used to study the Quran and ask questions.  It was a place for the Government to receive delegations from foreign countries.  It was a treasury from which charity work was done and it was a war-room where decisions and planning for wars imposed on Muslims were made.”  A Quote from Islam-USA.com on Mosques

dic

The $110 million Diyanet Islamic Center of America opened in April 2016 in Lanham, Maryland.  The opening was hosted by Turkish President Ergodan

Many people in the West are significantly confused about the true nature of a mosque.

To understand what a mosque is, one must first understand what Islam is. To be a “muslim” is to be one who submits to Islam. To submit to Islam is to submit to the law of Allah – sharia.  100% of all sharia mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule (sharia).  Jihad is only defined in sharia as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

The mosque is the center of all life in the Islamic community.  Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, military, political, legal and religious)” and the mosque is the center of all things social, cultural, military, political, legal and religious.

In a video HERE, former Islamic scholar and professor of sharia, Sam Solomon (name he uses since his conversion to Christianity), details a mosque is the center of Islamic government and much more than a place to pray.

According to Islam, the perfect example for all mankind is Mohammad.  The koran says so.

“And thou (Mohammad) standest on an exalted standard of character.”  Koran 68:4

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern of conduct for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.”  Koran 33:21

Why do Muslims step their right foot into the mosque first? Because Mohammad did it.

Why is it unlawful for Muslim men to wear gold? Because Mohammad forbid it.

Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry a 7 year old girl? Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the relationship when she was 9.

Why is it okay for Muslims to war against non-Muslims? Because Mohammad said it and Mohammad did it.

How did Mohammad use the first mosque in Medina?  It was used for: social gatherings; for legal rulings; for teaching Islam; for storing food, water, ammunition and weapons; for housing jihadis; for planning battles; and it was the place from which jihadi was launched.

Mosques are the center of the Islamic State, and the places from which Islam enforces its will on the community and on the world.

This is why all over the world, military and security services continue to find weapons and explosives in mosques, and the mosques teach jihad is obligatory for the muslim community.

The mosques our military went into in Iraq and Afghanistan had weapons.

The mosques recently raided by European security officials had weapons or evidence of weapons and/or explosives training.

As a matter of fact, UTT’s Chris Gaubatz went into mosques around the United States posing as a Muslim and discovered most of them advocate violence and have literature advocating/supporting violence against non-Muslims.

The “Mapping Sharia” research project conducted between May 2007 and May 2010, reveals 51% of U.S. mosques advocate violence and another 30% have texts that support violence.

The Center for Religious Freedom (Freedom House) published a report in 2005 – with Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey as its Chairman – revealing a large number of mosques in America are owned and funded by the government of Saudi Arabia, and teach American muslims they must wage jihad against non-Muslims, hate non-Muslims, and they can never truly be “citizens” of a non-Muslim state, among other things.

Canadian officials publicly admit “extremist” literature calling for violence against unbelievers is “common” in mosques in Canada (Aug 2016).

Here are some other noteworthy news stories affirming mosques are not simply places of worship for Muslims:

After the jihadi (“terrorist”) attacks in Tunisia in the summer of 2015, the Tunisian government moved to close 80 of the 100 remaining mosques there.  The head of Tunisia’s association of imams said police searches uncovered weapons in 40 mosques around the country in 2014.

The largest mosque in Madrid was a jihadi recruitment center run by a former prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba U.S. facility for terrorists (Dec 2014).

One of the largest mosques in Switzerland was raided because the Imam instructed his followers that Muslims who do not attend mosque and pray should be killed (Nov 2016).

Netherlands authorities thwarted a plot centered at a mosque to massacre Jews at a local synagogue (Nov 2016).

Germans raided and closed a Mosque for teaching ISIS Ideology – ie Islam (Dec 2014).

The Oklahoma Mosque attended by jihadi Alton Nolen, who beheaded his co-worker, taught attendees they must establish a caliphate under sharia and destroy the US (Sep 2014).

Russian officials arrested the Imam of a Mosque and found explosives there (Jan 2016).

At two separate mosques in Afghanistan in (March 2014) and (April 2016) Muslims blew themselves up in the mosques while making explosives.

Danish police found machetes in mosque they raided (June 2014).

A large mosque in Gaza was struck by Israeli military officials because it contained weapons (July 2014).

mosques

In April 2015 the Imam of the Grand Mosque called for an all out war against all Shiites and Christians. This Imam is one of the most respected leaders in the Islamic world.

The chairman of Al Azhar (who is ranked #1 among the 500 most influential muslims on the planet) calls for jihad against unbelievers.  Al Azhar University is the oldest and most respect school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world.

This might explain why in Denmark only 14% of mosques distance themselves from ISIS and ISIS ideology (April 2015).

For more information see UTT’s article “What is the Purpose of Islamic Centers/Mosques in America” from January 2016.

UTT Asks You to Consider 3 Simple Action Items:

  1.  Know the threat.  Use UTT as a resource for research.
  2. Bring the UTT 3-Day law enforcement program “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Network” to your area so those charged with protecting you know this too.
  3. Ensure your pastors and rabbis are sharing this truth with their flocks so as to protect them and the broader community.

And, as always, ensure your local leaders know CAIR is Hamas so when CAIR starts yapping to con your leaders into believing they are friendly, your leaders will know better and treat them like the terrorists they are.

Combating Political Islam

political-islam-captureClaremont Institute, by David Reaboi and Kyle Shideler, December 9, 2016:

Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump voiced beliefs about national security that many Americans have shared since, at least, the early days of the Obama administration. The inability to speak honestly and coherently about the enemy and its ideology, Trump argued, has repeatedly led to failure: terror attacks at home that were not stopped; wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria that were not won.

Millions of Americans agree with Trump’s assessment, believing the Obama White House had, for reasons of political correctness, mischaracterized the terrorist threat, treating Islam as a secondary feature instead of the defining one. Any such assessment, however, necessarily implies this corollary: an accurate representation of the enemy based on its ideology would indicate a far larger threat to U.S. interests, encompassing more of the Islamic world than previously admitted by either of the past two presidential administrations.

On national security, Trump has a mandate from the American people to expand the focus of the Obama years—which fixates on the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, all of whom seek to forcibly impose an Islamic state—to a more comprehensive understanding of the enemy and the threat it poses. “We can beat them,” Trump’s nominee for National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), told Fox News in September, “but we have to decide that this is an enemy first.” This more expansive understanding, then, centers on an ideology that promotes implementing an Islamic political order as the sole legitimate method of religious and political expression.

As articulated by prominent Islamist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary preoccupation of Islamist movements is “Islamic Awakening,” a revivalist strategy activating Muslims throughout the world to impose totalitarian Islamic law—first within a given territory, a Caliphate, then across the world. The imposition of Islamic law means restricting free speech and persecuting minority and non-Muslim communities. These goals being antithetical to liberal democracy, the success of Islamist political movements are inherently destructive of America’s vital interests.

Ideological Threat Focus: Islamism, Not Just ISIS

Among those who have supported a wider national security threat focus, opinions differ as to whether practitioners of this ideology—call it political Islam or Islamism—represent an aberration of Islam generally; a strain among many strains of Islamic thought; or whether it is, as Islamists themselves claim, the only faithful representation of Islam’s historical and legal practices. But few dispute the entity most responsible for advancing the notion of political Islam is the global, secretive organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, the new administration’s counterterrorism efforts are likely to focus on it. Trump campaign advisor Walid Phares recently indicated to an Arab-language newspaper that the incoming administration will designate this Islamist group a foreign terrorist organization, the goal of a year-long legislative effort led by Senator Ted Cruz. While the House version of the bill, authored by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, easily passed the House Judiciary Committee, Republican congressional leadership has stymied its passage. Reports from staffers indicate that establishment Republicans have expressed concerns about how such a designation would impact U.S. policy, both at home and abroad.

One difficulty in making the case for the Muslim Brotherhood’s designation has been a fundamental lack of knowledge about its role in waging terrorism. Since 1928, when it was founded by Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian, the Brotherhood has kept terrorist violence—or the threat of such violence—within its doctrinal toolkit, maintaining close ties to other sympathetic terror groups. As the 9/11 Commission reported, the Brotherhood’s comfortable association with violent jihadist terror stretches from establishing clandestine “Special Apparatus” terror cells in the 1930s—which are still active—to the deep influence of Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb upon al-Qaeda.

The Brotherhood also constitutes the ideological wellspring for nearly every current jihadist organization. As al-Qaradawi notes in Islamic Education and Hassan al-Banna, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that invigorated and promoted a view of Jihad that had lain dormant” “The movement of Ikhwanul Muslimoon (The Muslim Brothers) breathed new life into jihad: giving it a place of honor and prominence in writings; stressing its importance in lectures, meetings, and songs; and asserting its sovereignty over individual and collective life.” Where al-Banna provided inspiration and organization, Sayyid Qutb provided the roadmap. His 1964 book Milestones operationalized a plan for the reestablishment of totalitarian Islamic law through a skillful mixture of indoctrination and physical violence, all pegged to long-established concepts in Islamic law.

Any move in Washington against the Muslim Brotherhood faces, even more than a lack of knowledge, intense ideological resistance. For decades, a bipartisan American foreign policy consensus has endorsed engagement with and promotion of Islamists in an attempt to use them as a counterweight, to either other Islamic terror groups or larger geopolitical adversaries.

Seeking to engage Muslim Brotherhood officials or franchises has a long historical pedigree within our foreign policy establishment. As Ian Johnson documented in his outstanding history, A Mosque in Munich, America first turned to Islamists in the early days of the Cold War in order to nurture alternatives to the Soviets. During that time, however, many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment seemed to recognize that, ultimately, the long-term objectives of the Islamists were both anti-democratic and harmful to American national interests. An internal analysis from the period noted that leading Muslim Brotherhood figure Said Ramadan—then a guest in the Eisenhower White House who was backed by the CIA—was “a fascist” and obsessed with seizing power.

Unfortunately, such a blunt assessment of the U.S. government’s Islamist interlocutors seems as quaint today as a 1950s TV commercial. By 2009 skepticism of Islamists’ long-term goals had been thoroughly abandoned, as President Obama formally announced the full-throated promotion of political Islam as the legitimate expression of democratic will throughout the Middle East.

For the Obama administration, the Islamists’ goals, motives, and doctrines were immaterial. It followed that spasms of violent Islamic terrorism are merely the product of authoritarian societies in the Middle East and the citizens’ attendant lack of freedom to pursue their political aspirations peacefully. The most productive response, the foreign-policy class reasoned, was to encourage authoritarian rule by these countries’ leading opposition. Of course, then as now, almost all Islamist parties in the Middle East are either formally or ideologically linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Logic seemed to dictate, then, that support for democracy would, necessarily, translate into de facto support for various local tribunes of political Islam. Since Islamists were the immediate beneficiaries of a democratization policy, the administration was disposed to consider nearly all Islamist movements “moderate.”

Nevertheless, a bipartisan consensus on this issue turned this theory into a touchstone concept of Obama administration policy. Promoting Islamist groups has, over time, come to define the American national interest.

Reaping the Whirlwind

The failures of American foreign policy in the Middle East that Trump articulated on the campaign trail follow from these assumptions about political Islam. The Obama administration’s promotion of Islamism has not only failed to deliver its intended results, but encouraged terrorism, both international and domestic, while destabilizing Egypt, Libya, Syria and other regions vital to America. Long-time Sunni allies panicked as they saw the spread of the Islamists—whom they had once funded to operate against the West—now threatening, with implicit U.S. support, their own rule. Saudi Arabia banned Muslim Brotherhood materials from schools, and the United Arab Emirates designated numerous Brotherhood fronts, including ones operating in the United States, as terrorist entities.

Where the wave of political Islam met success, it was short-lived. Rather than promoting good governance and ending corruption, the Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt led to a rapid expansion of jihad in the Sinai, with the Brotherhood leaders’ tacit support. The triumphant Islamists spent more time establishing Islamic law and targeting Coptic Christians than providing desperately needed hard currency, natural gas, and food to the afflicted Egyptian people. The Brotherhood and other Islamists rose to prominence in Libya with the assistance of al-Qaeda-linked fighters, but could not maintain power democratically, rejecting the Libyan election result that favored their political opponents. The resulting civil war has made that country fertile grounds for both al-Qaeda and Islamic State fighters. In Syria, despite Western backing, Brotherhood-linked militias continue to insist upon close ties and cooperation with al-Qaeda’s local affiliates. And while the Islamic State has publicly criticized the Muslim Brotherhood for its relationship with the West, Israeli and Egyptian intelligence officials say the Islamic State in fact receives support from Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood for its attacks in the Sinai.

Here in the United States, law enforcement has been overwhelmed by hundreds of terror cases. While the focus of the media and the Obama administration has been on the Islamic State and its ability to influence potential supporters via the internet, few have noted the repeated appearance of Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Centers and organizations in attacks in Garland, Texas, San Bernardino, and Chattanooga, as well as in connection to several would-be Islamic State fighters who were caught before they could act.

It appears the new administration understands this error, and will correct it. At the Heritage Foundation last May, Secretary of Defense nominee General James Mattis asked the blunt but essential question: “Is political Islam in America’s best interests?” He went on to demonstrate that the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian theocracy (respectively, political Islam’s primary Sunni and Shia embodiments) were inimical to our well-being. President-elect Trump’s nomination of Mattis suggests he holds the same view.

From their service under President Obama both Generals Mattis and Flynn understand the mistaken premise of the outgoing administration’s engagement with political Islam: the unfalsifiable wish that, through participating in the democratic process, Islamists will be transformed from a source of anti-American terrorism into a bulwark against their more militant brethren. Despite the dangerous results of this hypothesis, the Obama administration viewed it as a way to simultaneously promote democracy and redirect militants’ energies from terrorist to politics. Consequently, even domestic Islamists stopped being the targets of counterterror investigations, and were treated instead as partners in “Countering Violent Extremism” programs.

Is the Muslim Brotherhood “Too Big to Fail”?

While the Bush Administration was engaged in a military and foreign policy struggle in the Middle East, it was also investigating domestic Islamist activity. Following the 9/11 attacks, investigations and prosecutions repeatedly touched upon individuals and groups in the United States affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. A careful study of these early cases revealed that the Brotherhood provided the ideological basis for jihadist violence, but also material support. In the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) case, for example, the U.S. government outlined a decades long plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to provide material support for Hamas. There were other instances:

Not only did each of these cases, and many others like them, involve Muslim Brothers, but the interlocking web of conspirators and co-conspirators makes clear that that the Muslim Brothers are not a cog in the Islamist terror machine—they are the engineers who designed and run it.

Law enforcement soon found that some of these cases were political hot potatoes. Many of the subjects were wealthy, politically connected, well-regarded religious figures, or perceived as prominent within the Muslim American community. At fundraising events held at many of the most prominent Islamic Centers around the country, for example, the Holy Land Foundation successfully solicited millions in donations for the violent jihad being waged by the designated terrorist group Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological offshoot in the West Bank and Gaza. This happened with the knowing cooperation of some of the most prominent and influential Muslims in the country. By late 2008, the Bush Justice Department would prove at trial that many of these organizations and individuals constituted a conspiracy to fund Hamas. Prosecutors would label 306 of these as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the terror-funding scheme, listing organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); as well as individuals like onetime HLF employee Kifah Mustapha and prodigious Hamas fundraiser Mohamed al-Hanooti.

In the wake of the Holy Land Foundation case, those who take the Islamist ideological threat seriously believed that secondary prosecutions targeting Muslim Brotherhood leaders and co-conspirators intimately involved in the Hamas funding scheme would be a crippling blow to domestic Islamist terror networks. But there were no secondary prosecutions. There’s some debate whether those prosecutions were squashed for political reasons by the incoming Obama administration, or by career Department of Justice officials. Regardless, the absence of follow-on cases against unindicted co-conspirators left in place a vast infrastructure that provided millions in hard currency—as well the equivalent of millions of dollars in media and public policy assistance—to terrorist groups. Even now, much of the evidence acquired by the government against the Muslim Brotherhood and its network in the United States—a large portion of which was entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial—remains classified. Despite multiple requests in the name of legislative oversight, the Obama Justice Department has taken pains to prevent anyone, including Congress, examining it.

Perhaps the government considered the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S. “too big to fail.” For example, a federal judge noted that the government supplied “ample evidence” to link a Muslim Brotherhood organization like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to the terror group Hamas. Yet ISNA is affiliated with something on the order of one out of every four American mosques. How would prosecution of such an entity appear to the broader American community? How would the rest of the Muslim American community respond to an indictment? If the Muslim Brotherhood network in America and its allies were able to raise a political maelstrom over the conviction of Sami Al Arian, a South Florida professor tied to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, how much louder would a hyper-partisan media and an aggressive, social media-fueled activist infrastructure shriek if, for example, the organizing force behind a quarter of American mosques were indicted?

It’s no wonder that capitalizing on the government’s “too big to fail” assessment has proven to be an effective strategy of Islamist leaders in the United States, as pressure groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood routinely conflate their own front organizations and political goals with the totality of American Muslims. Regrettably, an increasingly uncurious media accepts this falsehood—and membership records for Muslim Brotherhood groupsmake clear it is a falsehood.

A New Way Forward

The new Trump administration must be prepared to rebut the inevitable complaints from self-styled Islamist “civil rights” leaders and their enablers in the media. It’s important to remember that this would be the case whether or not the next president orders the State Department to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization. The Trump campaign and national security team has withstood the overwrought allegations that his proposals target all Muslims.

Designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization should give law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to begin a serious, long-term investigation of the Islamist group’s network in this country. The new administration must undertake a genuine effort to map this clandestine system, and key organizational leaders should be made the target of legitimate investigation, and prosecuted as legally appropriate.

It will be difficult to immediately reverse a culture within the U.S. government that has favored engaging the Muslim Brotherhood over investigating it. Since at least the Clinton administration, the White House Rolodex has included officials from domestic Islamist groups whose names routinely appeared in the court documents of terror finance cases. Even more, the Obama administration has quietly removed many organizations and individuals designated as global terrorists from the list, undoing much of the work by counterterrorism agents who were responsible for our post-9/11 response.

Because of the Brotherhood’s political influence, which frustrated Bush-era prosecutions and halted them altogether under Obama, rolling back the Islamist group will require a joint counterterrorism/counterintelligence initiative. U.S. policy should treat all contacts with known and suspected Muslim Brotherhood members the way government personnel examine and report contacts with potential foreign intelligence services. Contact or association with the Brotherhood should be immediately disqualifying during ordinary background investigations for security clearances.

Additionally, a designation should provide added leverage for counterterrorism officials. Instead of approaching Brotherhood members and organizations as respected community leaders for outreach purposes either at home or abroad, the primary goal should be to acquire the intelligence needed to disrupt terror finance or prevent indoctrination. If necessary, officials can use the possibility of prosecution under the Muslim Brotherhood designation to secure cooperation, which would be similar to the way informants are treated when approaching other conspirators, such as crime organizations.

Unlike the prosecution of the Mafia however, a Trump administration will need to accompany counterterrorism efforts with a strong public relations campaign. Informed, articulate spokesmen will need to explain how relevant prosecutions were conducted, why they were necessary, and—perhaps most importantly—how they targeted the Muslim Brotherhood for its criminal behavior, not its religious convictions. Officials will need to be prepared to push back with facts against accusations of inappropriate discrimination. This, in turn, may require a more open approach to terror prosecutions, making relevant documents available to journalists quicker, while doing so in a manner that protects sources and methods.

Additionally, such a campaign to target the Muslim Brotherhood will require gathering more and better intelligence on the group’s ideology than the Obama Administration permitted. Since the U.S. government’s threat-focused counterterror training has been aggressively purged during the past eight years, accurate subject matter instruction will be the first step before earnest policy reorientation begins. Due to the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow Islamic extremists, training for counterterrorism and counterintelligence officials will necessarily address sensitive issues of Islamic doctrine and legal theory. Political correctness mustn’t be allowed to deny access to training based on demonstrable facts.

It Will Get Worse Before It Gets Better

As has always been the case since its founding—and is currently the case in Egypt today—the Muslim Brotherhood has responded to crackdowns by proclaiming that Islam itself is under attack. The group has galvanized its membership to conduct numerous violent assaults, usually under the identity of a “splinter” faction. We can expect that, should it be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, at least some element of the Brotherhood will respond by seeking to increase terrorist violence against the United States. This will be difficult for a U.S. law enforcement infrastructure already strained by the Islamic State, but is a storm that can and must be weathered. Designating the Muslim Brotherhood remains necessary. The potential for violence must be weighed against law enforcement’s ability to take swifter action and develop a deeper, more accurate view of Islamic extremism operating in the United States and around the globe.

President-elect Trump successfully campaigned on the repudiation of the national security views of the Obama administration. With the failure of the “democratic Islamist” project, the time has come to return to the alternative: (a) the promotion of Islamists accelerates, rather than stifles, Islamic terrorism; and (b) the Muslim Brotherhood remains at the center of Islamic ideological extremism throughout the world. Any policy not prepared to abandon America’s promotion of political Islam broadly, and the Muslim Brotherhood specifically, merely perpetuates old failures.

“Nothing to do with Islam”?

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, December 3, 2016:

  • “Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.” — The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
  • “The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs… Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches… Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?” — Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University.
  • The jihadists who carry out terrorist attacks in the service of ISIS, for example, are merely following the commands in the Quran, both 9:5, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them…” and Quran 8:39, “So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah.”
  • Archbishop Welby — and Egypt’s extraordinary President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has finally had the courage to say in public that if one insists on remaining “religiously illiterate,” it is impossible to solve the problem of religiously motivated violence.

For the first time, a European establishment figure from the Church has spoken out against an argument exonerating ISIS and frequently peddled by Western political and cultural elites. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, speaking in France on November 17, said that dealing with the religiously-motivated violence in Europe

“requires a move away from the argument that has become increasingly popular, which is to say that ISIS is ‘nothing to do with Islam’… Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.”

Archbishop Welby also said that, “It’s very difficult to understand the things that impel people to some of the dreadful actions that we have seen over the last few years unless you have some sense of religious literacy”.

“Religious literacy” has indeed been in short supply, especially on the European continent. Nevertheless, all over the West, people with little-to-no knowledge of Islam, including political leaders, journalists and opinion makers, have all suddenly become “experts” on Islam and the Quran, assuring everybody that ISIS and other similarly genocidal terrorist groups have nothing to do with the purported “religion of peace,” Islam.

It is therefore striking finally to hear a voice from the establishment, especially a man of the Church, oppose, however cautiously, this curiously uniform (and stupefyingly uninformed) view of Islam. Until now, establishment Churches, despite the atrocities committed against Christians by Muslims, have been exceedingly busy only with so-called “inter-faith dialogue.” Pope Francis has even castigated Europeans for not being even more accommodating towards the migrants who have overwhelmed the continent, asking Europeans:

“What has happened to you, the Europe of humanism, the champion of human rights, democracy and freedom?… the mother of great men and women who upheld, and even sacrificed their lives for, the dignity of their brothers and sisters?”

(Perhaps the Pope, before rhetorically asking Europeans to sacrifice their lives for their migrant “brothers and sisters” should ask himself whether many of the Muslim migrants in Europe consider Europeans their “brothers and sisters”?)

A statement on Islam is especially significant coming from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop and principal leader of the Anglican Church and the symbolic head of the Anglican Communion, which stands at around 85 million members worldwide, the third-largest communion in the world.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby (left), recently said that dealing with the religiously-motivated violence in Europe “requires a move away from the argument that has become increasingly popular, which is to say that ISIS is ‘nothing to do with Islam’… Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.” (Image source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

Only a year ago, commenting on the Paris massacres, the Archbishop followed conventional politically correct orthodoxy, pontificating that, “The perversion of faith is one of the most desperate aspects of our world today.” He explained that Islamic State terrorists have distorted their faith to the extent that they believe they are glorifying their God. Since then, he has clearly changed his mind.

Can one expect other Church leaders and political figures to heed Archbishop Welby’s words, or will they be conveniently overlooked? Western leaders have noticeably practiced selective hearing for many years and ignored truths that did not fit the “narrative” politicians apparently wished to imagine, especially when spoken by actual experts on Islam. When, in November 2015, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University, explained why the prestigious institution, which educates mainstream Islamic scholars, refused to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic, none of them was listening:

“The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from non-Muslims]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?”

Nor did Western leaders listen when The Atlantic, hardly an anti-establishment periodical, published a study by Graeme Wood, who researched the Islamic State and its ideology in depth. He spoke to members of the Islamic State and Islamic State recruiters and concluded:

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam”.

In the United States, another establishment figure, Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Donald Trump’s incoming White House Chief of Staff, recently made statements to the same effect as the Archbishop of Canterbury. “Clearly there are some aspects of that faith that are problematic and we know them; we’ve seen it,” Priebus said when asked to comment on incoming National Security Adviser former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s view that Islam is a political ideology that hides behind being a religion.

In much of American society, Flynn’s view that Islam is a political ideology is considered controversial, despite the fact that the political and military doctrines of Islam, succinctly summarized in the concept of jihad, are codified in Islamic law, sharia, as found in the Quran and the hadiths. The jihadists who carry out terrorist attacks in the service of ISIS, for example, are merely following the commands in the Quran, both 9:5, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them…” and Quran 8:39, “So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah.”

The question becomes, then, whether other establishment figures will also acknowledge what someone like Archbishop Welby — and Egypt’s extraordinary President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has finally had the courage to say in public: that if one insists on remaining “religiously illiterate,” it is impossible to solve the problem of religiously motivated violence.

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

***

Understanding the  Threat:

The oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic jurisprudence is Al Azhar University, founded in Egypt in approximately 970 AD.

Al Azhar and its leadership continue to affirm “Jihad,” which it defines as war-fighting against unbelievers (non-Muslims), is obligatory until the world is under Islamic rule.

Oddly enough, this is exactly what Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all of the other jihadi organizations in the world teach, and what is taught in Islamic elementary schools around the world, including the United States.

***

The Doctrine of Cowards

Why are so many Muslim refugees coming to the US? Why do so few persecuted Christians come? The answer is the position of the churches. The biggest door into US society is the church door. The Christians and Jews love to attend interfaith gatherings where they sit and nod their heads yes to all that the Muslims say.

But the Christian and Jewish leaders are ignorant about Islam. They know nothing about the Islamic doctrine of Christian and Jew hatred. But what is worse is that they refuse to learn.

Christian leaders have developed a doctrine of the coward to justify their pious ignorance and fear. They are all about turning the other cheek, loving their enemies, and doing nothing while waiting for Jesus to return. They are incapable of boldness and courage. Wimps all (well, about 95% of them).

And if you are not a Christian, why aren’t you concerned with the greatest human rights tragedy happening today—the killing of religious minorities in Islamic lands? Why can’t persecuted Christians come as refugees to America? When will Christians care about the persecution of their own brothers and sisters?

What has happened to us (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and all others) that we are no longer able to have moral outrage? Righteous anger?