UTT SPECIAL REPORT: Terrorist from Terrorist Mosque Speaks in Delray Beach FL Tonight

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug. 17, 2017:

Tonight (8/17/2017) at the South County Civic Center in Delray Beach, Florida, Muslim Brother (Jihadi) Bassem Alhalabi will speak on “Human Rights” in Islam.

The contrast would be comical if it were not so dangerous and the public were better informed.

[Author’s note:  the leadership of the Islamic world at the Head of State level approved the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990) defining “Human Rights” as the imposition of Islamic Law/Sharia.  See Cairo Declaration HERE; note Articles 24 &25]

Bassem Alhalabi is the President of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, which is a highly sharia-adherent mosque, and has leaders/attendees involved in the terrorist groups Al Qaeda and Hamas.

Alhalabi is also currently a professor at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in the Department of Computer and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Before arriving at FAU, Alhalabi was in Tampa at the University of South Florida (USF)  working closely with convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian.  Alhalabi co-authored publications with al-Arian and, when applying to FAU, he used al-Arian as a reference.

Sami Al-Arian in jail

The September 21, 2004 superseding indictment charged in the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) stated: “SAMI AMlN ALARlAN was a member of the PIJ, a member of the ‘Shura Council’ of the PIJ, and Secretary of the ‘Shura Council.’”

Al-Arian pled guilty to “Conspiracy to make or receive contributions or funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Designated Terrorist, in violation of 18 USC Section 371.”

PIJ is also a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

Al-Arian was sentenced on May 1, 2006, to 57 months in prison.

In addition to being a terrorist, Sami al-Arian was a tenured professor at the University of South Florida and taught computer science, like Alhalabi.

On June 30, 2003, Alhalabi was charged in a U.S. Department of Commerce administrative hearing as follows:  “Alhalabi caused to be exported a thermal imaging camera, an item subject to the Regulations, from the United States to Syria.”

Who sends thermal imaging equipment to a state sponsor of terrorism?  A terrorist does.  It is not clear why this was not a “Material Support for Terrorism” charge.

The Alhalabi charging document from the U.S. Department of Commerce can be read here.

The Islamic Center of Boca Raton has a history of sharia adherence and, therefore, supporting jihad – what U.S. law calls “terrorism.”

The Islamic Center of Boca Raton

Prior to 9/11/2001, the Islamic Center of Boca Raton received grants from and donated money to the Global Relief Foundation (GRF), which the U.S. Treasury designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and shut down in 2002 because “its officers and directors have connections to, and have provided support for and assistance to, Usama bin Laden (UBL), al Qaida (sic).”

The mosque publicly pleads ignorance.

In 2007, Dr. Rafiq Sabir, an active member of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, was convicted of Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization – Al Qaeda.

On May 23, 2016, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Students Association (MSA) at FAU hosted a panel discussion which included Bassem Alhalabi.  Alhalabi told the audience “Sharia is being practiced in the U.S.  We at the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, we practice sharia.”  He then explained to the crowd that amputating hands for theft is a good thing.

See the video here.  (hat tip to the United West!)

UTT readers are aware sharia mandates jihad until an Islamic State (Caliphate) is established and sharia is the law over the entire earth.  Jihad is legally defined as “warfare against non-muslims” in sharia.

The website for the Islamic Center of Boca Raton states:  “Terrorism is not a religious identity, rather it is a horrific behavior often justified by misapplied religious dogma.  ICBR [Islamic Center of Boca Raton], in accordance to its sole purpose and understanding of Islam, stands firm on the condemnation of all forms and acts of terrorism. The ill acts of a few misguided individuals shall not be viewed as the mainstream of Islam and Muslims.”

Since we know – because Bassem Alhalabi publicly said it – the ICBR is fully sharia adherent, we must define “Terrorism” as Islam/Sharia defines the word.  In Islam, “Terrorism” is to kill a muslim for a non-sharia prescribed reason, ie to kill a muslim without right under sharia.  Sharia prescribes when and how muslims may be killed:  those who commit capital crimes in Islam (apostasy and adultery for instance), and a muslim who kills another muslim without right (for a non-sharia prescribed reason) may be killed. Any other killing of a muslim is “Terrorism” in Islam.

So, of course they denounce terrorism.  However, they are not referring to “terrorism” as defined by U.S. law.

And they will never denounce JIHAD.

In March 2011, Bassem Alhalabi was arrested in Boca Raton, Florida for assaulting Joe Kaufman, Chairman of Americans Against Hate, after Kaufman spoke in Tallahassee, Florida about the terrorism ties of Hamas leader Ahmed Bedier, a colleague of Alhalabi, and leader of the group United Voices of America.

In May 2017 it was revealed the Islamic Center of Boca Raton recently paid $4.9 million for a 19 acre plot in Delray Beach, Florida.  Wonder what the Muslim Brotherhood will use that for?

Nothing good to be sure.

At what point will citizens in Florida hold their local and state officials accountable for passing the buck while allowing terrorists like Bassem Alhalabi to walk the streets?

Linda Sarsour’s ‘jihad against Donald Trump’ is what it sounds like

While Sarsour may not be personally calling for violence, she can hardly be unaware of doctrinal connotations her words carry, and these connotations would be unmistakably understood by her ISNA audience or indeed anyone who has an accurate understanding of the legal understanding of jihad within Islamic law. (AP Photo/Henny Ray Abrams, File)

Washington Examiner, by Kyle Shideler | Jul 7, 2017

There’s yet another controversy involving New York-based Islamist and current Democratic cause célèbre Linda Sarsour. The poster child for the Women’s March who wished to “take away the vagina” from female genital mutilation victim, reformer and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali caught the attention of conservative journalists when she issued what appeared to be a call for jihad from the podium of the Islamic Society of North America’s annual convention.

“I hope, that when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad. We are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East but here in the United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

Countless media outlets on the left (and a handful on the right) rushed to Sarsour’s defense, allegedly claiming that conservatives took the comments out of context. In particularly they note Sarsour’s decision to cite a hadith — a documented statement by Islam’s founder Mohammed — which describes speaking truth to a tyrant as the “best form of jihad.”

It’s true that Sarsour did preface her use of the word “jihad” in this way. But it’s Sarsour’s defenders, not her critics, that are taking the speech out of its wider context.

To begin with, consider on whose platform Sarsour was speaking. Sarsour was speaking before the annual convention of a group about which a federal judge ruled, “The government has provided ample evidence to establish” their association with the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist organization Hamas. Among that evidence was the fact that ISNA’s subsidiary shared a bank account with the now-convicted Holy Land Foundation, an account that issued checks to Hamas Deputy Chairman Mousa Abu Marzook.

Far from shunning ISNA’s Muslim Brotherhood history, Sarsour overtly endorsed it. Sarsour was speaking as the keynote speaker at a luncheon honoring Dr. Sayyid Syeed, whom Sarsour praised for his role in “the infrastructure you have built for all of us.” That infrastructure can only refer to Syeed’s role in numerous Muslim American organizations, almost all of which have been identified by documents submitted as evidence in federal court as Muslim Brotherhood organizations or fronts.

Thus it cannot be ignored that Sarsour is speaking before a pro-Muslim Brotherhood audience. Given the Brotherhood’s own motto that “Jihad is our way, and dying for the sake of Allah is our highest hope,” it’s hard to believe that among this crowd the invocation of jihad doesn’t carry with it recognition of its violent meaning.

Sarsour added to this context by lauding a man she described as her “mentor,” Sirraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj, for those who do not follow U.S. counterterrorism history, is notable for his role as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj also testified as a character witness for “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, whose leadership of the 1993 WTC bombing cell would earn him a conviction for seditious conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government.

Sarsour has said she is seeking to emulate Wahhaj, whose own views on jihad are perfectly clear. Wahhaj has even raised funds for groups now designated for financing al Qaeda.

Like Wahhaj, Sarsour couches her speech in the language of responding to “oppressors.” Indeed, oppressors and oppression are the common language that binds Sarsour’s speech together. This is highly significant since the topic, combating oppression, carries with it clear connotations within Islamic legal doctrine on jihad.

Consider a fatwa published on IslamOnline, a website established by Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf Al Qaradawi. After noting that there are “various kinds” of jihad, including “jihad against oneself” and “jihad against Satan,” the spiritual sorts of struggles that Sarsour’s defenders are attempting to invoke, the text raises the question of “oppression.”

The fatwa notes, “Jihad against the leaders of oppression and innovation is of three kinds: jihad with one’s hand (i.e., physical jihad, fighting) if one is able. If that is not possible, then it should be with one’s tongue (i.e., by speaking out). If that is not possible, then it should be with one’s heart (i.e., by hating the evil and feeling that it is wrong).” [Emphasis mine]

This view is shared in the 14th century manual of Islamic law known as The Reliance of the Traveller by Shafi’i scholar Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri. Reliance is a useful choice since it was certified by the ISNA-affiliated Fiqh Council of North America, alongside many other Islamic scholars from various nations.

Reliance notes, under its index for “Oppressors, Fighting, as part of faith (iman)” [p.75.4(2)]:

“in the hadith related by Muslim concerning oppressors, [meaning Sahih Muslim, understood as the second-most authoritative compilation of hadith]:
(2) ‘Whoever fights them with his hand is a believer, whoever fights them with his tongue is a believer, whoever fights them in his heart, is a believer.”

In other words, Sarsour’s invocation of jihad of the tongue is viewed in traditional Islamic doctrine as not in opposition to violent jihad (i.e. fighting) but rather as explicitly complementary to it.

While Sarsour may not be personally calling for violence, she can hardly be unaware of doctrinal connotations her words carry, and these connotations would be unmistakably understood by her ISNA audience or indeed anyone who has an accurate understanding of the legal understanding of jihad within Islamic law.

People defending Sarsour’s words simply don’t know what she’s talking about.

Kyle Shideler is Director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy. 

Also see:

***

UTT Throwback Thursday: Are You Still Listening to the Imam?

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 15, 2017:

Monday’s UTT article entitled “The Path to Victory Begins with Knowing the Threat” made one important point:  the threat America faces from the Global Islamic Movement has EVERYTHING to do with Islam.

One more time:  it is a capital crime in Islam (sharia) for a muslim to teach another muslim anything about Islam that is incorrect AND it is obligatory for a muslim to lie to non-muslims when the goal is obligatory – like advancing Islam.

Which means to understand Islam, a person must study the authoritative books of sharia muslims teach each other when non-muslims are not around.  That is what UTT does.

Therefore, it is unprofessional for U.S. political leaders, intelligence professionals, pastors, and our military leaders to use “Islamic scholars/experts or Imams” to tell them about Islam.

Yet, for years America’s leaders have used Al Qaeda operatives like Abdurahman Alamoudi and IMAM Anwar al Awlaki or Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas operatives like Nihad Awad, IMAM Mohamed Magid, Sayeed Syed, Muzammil Siddiqi, Salam al Marayati, and others to tell them about Islam.  This is one of the main reasons our leaders lack an understanding of the true nature of the threats we face.

Two glaring examples reared their heads this week just in time for this article to be published.

First, Dr. Qanta Ahmed is a jihadist in a pant-suit who is an expert in verbal oragami.  In UTT’s recent videos, Qanta Ahmed discusses the difference between “Islamism” – the violent ideology according to her – and “Islam” – the peaceful religion that has nothing to do with Islamism.  In military-speak we call this an “Information Operation.”  For the layman, its called a LIE with the purpose of keeping you from understanding the threat until its too late.  See the UTT videos HERE and HERE.  As always, the media is a willing accomplice.

This week Qanta Ahmed has now separated “sharia” from “sharia law.”  In this incredibly obvious propaganda effort, Fox News swallows and regurgitates this nonsense.  See UTT’s video HERE.

The second example comes to us from evangelical minister James White who publicly states he learned everything he knows about Islam from Muslim Brother Sheikh Yasir Qadhi, leader of the Memphis (TN) Islamic Center.  The New York Times calls Qadhi  “one of the most influential conservative clerics in American Islam.”  By “conservative” they must mean “jihadi-like.”

Qadhi is a sharia scholar and works inside the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement calling for the implementation of sharia and an Islamic state here in America.

Specifically, Qadhi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA).  Qadhi is also the Dean of Academic Affairs and an instructor at the al Maghrib Institute, which has produced a large number of jihadis over the years including Tarek Mehanna, Ramy Zam Zam – the leader of the “Virginia 5,” Daniel Maldonado, Nuradin Abdi (founder of the Al Maghrib’s Ohio Chapter), and others.

Yasir Qadhi has been the keynote speaker at numerous prominent Muslim Brotherhood organizations (eg ICNA), works closely with terrorist organizations like Hamas and its leaders and has a long track record of publicly defending known terrorists such as:  convicted terrorist leader Sami al Aria, convicted terrorist Ali al-Timimi, American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh, convicted Al Qaeda terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, Tarek Mehanna, and others.

Yasir Qadhi was a trustee at the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas’ Islamic Society of Boston founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi.  This is the same ISB which nurtured the Boston Marathon bombers.

Yet, James White publicly stands with Qadhi and lashes out at anyone who brings these facts to light.  It appears Mr. White has not read MB doctrine…

“The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah (gross ignorance/unbelief) is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.” [Milestones, Sayyid Qutb]

UTT continues to encourage all readers to know, digest, and understand that there is no “version” of Islam which does not mandate war against non-muslims (jihad) until the entire world is under Islamic rule.

There is no such thing as “radical Islamic extremism” nor is there a difference between “sharia” and “sharia law.”

All of this is a crafted campaign meant to buy time and keep people from focusing on the threat we face – Islam.

Ignoring Former Muslims To Our Detriment

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, April 30, 2017:

Many men and women have left Islam and courageously speak truthfully about what Islam teaches and the threat it poses to the civilized world.

These are people grew up being taught about the obligation to wage jihad, that taking Jews and Christians for friends is unlawful because it is prohibited by Allah in the Koran, that non-Muslims are the “worst of all creatures” (Koran 98:6), and that the purpose of Islam is to impose sharia (Islamic Law) on the entire world.

We in the non-Muslim world can learn a lot from these people.  Are we hearing them?

As a Special Agent in the FBI (1996-2008), UTT Founder/President John Guandolo worked with muslim assets/informants who did dangerous and difficult work on behalf of our nation and the FBI.  While they did not adhere to sharia, they identified themselves as “muslims.”

Through this work, Mr. Guandolo came to know about an Imam from Uganda who converted to Christianity. The Imam wrote his story in March of 2007, and it included details of growing up in Islam, training to become an Imam, and what Islam teaches.  John Guandolo had this story translated into English and then disseminated it inside the FBI as well as to Christian organizations to support their work in Islamic nations.

A brief summary of the story is below which gives readers an insight into the true intentions of Islam.  It reveals Islam is a totalitarian system which enslaves people who are a part of it.

“My name is Mayanja Yiusf.  I was born into a Muslim family in Uganda…When I came of age, I enrolled for studies in Islam and Arabic which took six years:  three years of Islam and three years of Arabic.  I trained in Uganda and Sudan and I became a prominent Imam and spoke at many mosques in and outside Kampala.  I was a leader of a Muslim Association called Al-Dawahti…I was on the council of Tabliqs and my paternal uncle is the leader of that sect in Uganda.

“I was born and raised a Muslim, but now I have left that life behind…In light of the crisis in the world today, and because of the ongoing strategies to attack Christians at every level, may this also be a warning to all peoples everywhere, that Islam is obtaining dominance and is arming itself for continued war on all things not of Islam.  There is little time left to reach the many innocent Muslims who wish they could escape from the violent slavery of Islam.

“I tell you my story while I am still alive.  You see, as a Muslim who has left the faith, my days may be numbered.  I have lived under the threat of death since I left my father’s household, only until now, they have not succeeded.

“Lest you think that the religion of Islam is promoting the love of God and fellow man, here are just a few of the works that Islam engages in today:

“It is not just the “radical fundamentalists” or jihadis who participate in the terror of today.  Do you not know that it is against the Koran to refuse help to those who are in Jihad?

“There is a strategy called the “New Mosque Movement” which seeks to begin building mosques and schools and clinics all over the world.  Just look around and you can see, in Africa, South America, England, and France, and even in America.  The mosques are the centers of political thought as well as religious practice, but then again, those two are inseparable in Islam.

“Muslim fathers will gladly kill their sons and daughters if they disobey or leave the religion.

“Muslim groups are sending Muslims to Christian places for information.  They spy everywhere, especially where there is freedom of movement…They start non-profits and organizations everywhere, many with the purpose to intimidate Western societies.  In the US, CAIR and organizations like them are funded to push the free countries to accept them and their religion and practices.  They threaten to sue and intimidate if they don’t get their way.

“Wherever they begin to operate in villages, towns, etc they threaten others, especially moderate Muslims, and even other Imams who are not as aggressive as the jihadists…Peace in Islam means that the countries are operating under the rule of Islam, Sharia Law, and with religious leaders in charge.  That is their peace.

“There are no innocent civilians for the jihadist.  All may be killed because they are merely part of the evil societies to be cleansed.

“I am proud to be a Christian now because the Almighty God of the Christians fights for himself.  he doesn’t request or persuade anybody to fight, but instead reconciles people to Himself.  He says that vengeance should be left to him alone.  I hope the reader is able to distinguish between the God of Christians, Jehovah, and Allah…You are hereby invited to think about this:  the Islamic faith does not encourage any believer to reason out who Allah is.  The day you will reason about what you were taught in Islam, will be the day you are released from bondage and you will see the light of Christ.”

UTT believes there is a lot to learn from individuals who leave Islam and speak truthfully about the threat it poses to those inside and outside Islam who do not adhere to the sharia and all of its obligations.

To defeat an enemy we must clearly identify the threat.  The threat the civilized world faces today is not from “violent extremists” or “radical Islam” or any other euphemism we put on the face of it.  The threat, as 100% of the enemy clearly states, comes from Islam which commands its adherents to impose sharia on the earth through all means necessary.

Speaking truth is never wrong.  For the sake of those enslaved by Islam, it is the loving thing to do.

Where Are the Moderate Muslims?

Published on Apr 27, 2017 by PragerU

After every terrorist attack, politicians and pundits reassure us that the atrocity does not represent mainstream Islam and certainly doesn’t reflect the true beliefs of the “moderate Muslim majority.” But how many moderate Muslims are there? And what exactly does “moderate” mean? Hussein Aboubakr, who was raised as a Muslim in Egypt, explains, and asks an important question: where are all the moderate Muslims that politicians and the media talk about?

***

Published on Jun 15, 2016 by Acts17Apologetics

http://www.answeringmuslims.com
Islam is in the headlines almost every day now, and it’s rarely for something positive. Moderate Muslims are distancing themselves from the actions and teachings of those who commit violence in the name of Allah. In this video, David Wood has three questions for moderate Muslims.

Threat Assessment in the Domestic War

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, April 24, 2017:

An objective review of the activities of the Islamic Movement in the United States, the response from US law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and the actions of local, state and federal leaders reveals the U.S. is closer to losing the war domestically than at any point in time since 9/11/2001.

Enemy Forces

The leading Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States and the “mother ship” of their jihadi Movement – the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) – hosted their second annual “Advocacy Day” on Capitol Hill on April 18, 2017 continuing it’s overwhelming information operation against the U.S. perpetrating the lie that Islam is here to peacefully coexist with our Constitutional Republic.  This hostile effort continues to produce elected officials willing to help promote the enemy’s agenda instead of doing their legal duty of identifying enemies and defending the Constitution against them.

The Diyanet Center of America, a massive Islamic Center/Mosque complex in Maryland, operates as a base for the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood’s operations with the support of local and state officials there.  The Turkish MB’s influence in the US rivals the Palestinian MB’s (Hamas) presence here.

The Diyanet Turkish Islamic Center of America in Maryland

The Turkish MB is continuing its info op on state legislators by paying for trips to Turkey to show the lawmakers it is a moderate” nation.  Groups like “The Holy Dove Foundation” and the “Turquoise Foundation” propagate this dangerous operation.

The most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s network whose stated objective is to wage “civilization jihad” to establish an Islamic state under sharia (Islamic law).  Many of these organizations currently work with the U.S. government, including the USCMO, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Legal Fund of America (MFLA), Muslim Advocates, Muslim Students Association (MSA), Hamas (doing business as CAIR), and many others.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s logistics and support network here is significant and they have penetrated all national agencies, have a broad plan and activities inside key U.S. infrastructure nodes, and control the U.S. national security decision-making process as it relates to Islamic jihad.

Anti-American hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and much of the media provide direct and aggressive support for these jihadi (“terrorist”) organizations.  Much of the media has demonstrated no interest in doing investigative journalism on these matters, and simply regurgitates whatever information the suit-wearing jihadi groups give them.

Preparations for War:  The USCMO is over-seeing the national coalescing of Islamic forces from individual mosques through regional councils to the USCMO leadership.  The USCMO is solidifying communications and logistics coordination as well as assisting in preparations for confrontation.  Mosques/Islamic Centers are organizing for armed confrontation with law enforcement, shoring up physical defenses where they see likely confrontation and increasing their pre-attack surveillances of churches and other targets.

Funding:  Nearly 16 years after 9/11, the U.S. government still views the government of Saudi Arabia as an ally in the war, despite the fact it has been implicated time and again in funding the global jihad against the West and, specifically, the United States.  Massive funding for Hamas and Hizbollah – both of which have a heavy presence in the U.S. – comes from Iran, and intelligence officials now believe the leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri, is being shielded by the Pakistani government in Karachi.  Pakistan is another U.S. “ally.”

Our leaders still believe they can use “moderate” muslim leaders to help America find it’s way to victory – a foolish and increasingly dangerous path.

“Friendly” Forces

The impact of the enemy’s information campaign (propaganda) is significant.  The recent jihadi incident in Sioux Falls, South Dakota sums up this entire war.

A sharia adherent jihadi – Ehab Jaber – went to a Christian event, filmed it live on Facebook, brandished weapons on video saying the crowd should be “terrified” and posted a number of other videos clearly indicating he had intent and desire to do harm to those who conflict with Islam.  Law enforcement officials and prosecutors refused to take any action and even publicly said the perpetrator broke no laws.  According to one state legislator, the Attorney General of South Dakota refused to push for a prosecution in this matter.

When massive public pressure came after the story gained international prominence last week, a SWAT team from Siuox Falls arrested Jaber last Friday (April 21).  The South Dakota Attorney General is now taking credit for this effort.

Updates on the Sioux Falls story can be followed HERE.

Our federal intelligence and law enforcement officials have little understanding of the jihadi movement, key players, intent, modus operandi, and Islamic doctrine (sharia) driving the movement.  The lack of basic knowledge of this information is staggering.  Local and state officials have relied on DHS and the FBI for their understanding of the threat which is why there is little understanding at the local level as well.

A Solution

UTT’s experience is that none of the law enforcement professionals, military, and intelligence analysts UTT trains have ever heard the information laid out in UTT’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Network” program, yet all of them state the information is “critical” to protecting their communities.

The enemy situation represents an insurgency in the United States.  Doctrinally, the response must be a counter-insurgency strategy.  In a counter-insurgency, the focus of effort is at the local level.  This is why the strategy for victory must be local police and citizens who understand the threat and have the courage to engage and defeat it.

This requires police be trained to understand and investigate the threat, and citizens be given the knowledge to support their police in aggressively taking care of the enemy in their communities.

UTT remains the only organization in America providing the training to do this and provide law enforcement with the tools they need to proactively find jihadis (“terrorists”), map out the jihadi network, and develop aggressive and innovative counter-strategies at the local and state level.

Citizens must move to get the attention of their sheriffs and pastors and organize to defend their communities.

***

Interview with John Guandolo from Nov 29, 2016: The Enemy is Inside the Gates

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islam’s Most Eloquent Apostate

ILLUSTRATION: ZINA SAUNDERS

WSJ, by Tunku Varadarajan, April 7, 2017:

The woman sitting opposite me, dressed in a charcoal pantsuit and a duck-egg-blue turtleneck, can’t go anywhere, at any time of day, without a bodyguard. She is soft-spoken and irrepressibly sane, but also—in the eyes of those who would rather cut her throat than listen to what she says—the most dangerous foe of Islamist extremism in the Western world. We are in a secure room at a sprawling university, but the queasiness in my chest takes a while to go away. I’m talking to a woman with multiple fatwas on her head, someone who has a greater chance of meeting a violent end than anyone I’ve met (Salman Rushdie included). And yet she’s wholly poised, spectacles pushed back to rest atop her head like a crown, dignified and smiling under siege.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia in 1969, is Islam’s most eloquent apostate. She has just published a slim book that seeks to add a new four-letter word—dawa—to the West’s vocabulary. It describes the ceaseless, world-wide ideological campaign waged by Islamists as a complement to jihad. It is, she says, the greatest threat facing the West and “could well bring about the end of the European Union as we know it.” America is far from immune, and her book, “The Challenge of Dawa,” is an explicit attempt to persuade the Trump administration to adopt “a comprehensive anti-dawa strategy before it is too late.”

Ms. Hirsi Ali has come a long way from the days when she—“then a bit of a hothead”—declared Islam to be incapable of reform, while also calling on Muslims to convert or abandon religion altogether. That was a contentious decade ago. Today she believes that Islam can indeed be reformed, that it must be reformed, and that it can be reformed only by Muslims themselves—by those whom she calls “Mecca Muslims.” These are the faithful who prefer the gentler version of Islam that she says was “originally promoted by Muhammad” before 622. That was the year he migrated to Medina and the religion took a militant and unlovely ideological turn.

At the same time, Ms. Hirsi Ali—now a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, where I also work—is urging the West to look at Islam with new eyes. She says it must be viewed “not just as a religion, but also as a political ideology.” To regard Islam merely as a faith, “as we would Christianity or Buddhism, is to run the risk of ignoring dawa, the activities carried out by Islamists to keep Muslims energized by a campaign to impose Shariah law on all societies—including countries of the West.”

Dawa, Ms. Hirsi Ali explains, is “conducted right under our noses in Europe, and in America. It aims to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and also to push existing Muslims in a more extreme direction.” The ultimate goal is “to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with Shariah.” It is a “never-ending process,” she says, and then checks herself: “It ends when an Islamic utopia is achieved. Shariah everywhere!”

Ms. Hirsi Ali contends that the West has made a colossal mistake by its obsession with “terror” in the years since 9/11. “In focusing only on acts of violence,” she says, “we’ve ignored the Islamist ideology underlying those acts. By not fighting a war of ideas against political Islam—or ‘Islamism’—and against those who spread that ideology in our midst, we’ve committed a blunder.”

There is a knock on the door. I hear hushed voices outside, presumably her bodyguard telling someone to come back later. To add to the mildly dramatic effect, a siren is audible somewhere in the distance, unusual for the serene Stanford campus. Ms. Hirsi Ali is unfazed. “What the Islamists call jihad,” she continues, “is what we call terrorism, and our preoccupation with it is, I think, a form of overconfidence. ‘Terrorism is the way of the weak,’ we tell ourselves, ‘and if we can just take out the leaders and bring down al Qaeda or ISIS, then surely the followers will stop their jihad.’ But we’re wrong. Every time Western leaders take down a particular organization, you see a different one emerge, or the same one take on a different shape. And that’s because we’ve been ignoring dawa.”

Ms. Hirsi Ali wants us to get away from this game of jihadi Whac-A-Mole and confront “the enemy that is in plain sight—the activists, the Islamists, who have access to all the Western institutions of socialization.” She chuckles here: “That’s a horrible phrase . . . ‘institutions of socialization’ . . . but they’re there, in families, in schools, in universities, prisons, in the military as chaplains. And we can’t allow them to pursue their aims unchecked.”

America needs to be on full alert against political Islam because “its program is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution”—with religious pluralism, the equality of men and women, and other fundamental rights, including the toleration of different sexual orientations. “When we say the Islamists are homophobic,” she observes, “we don’t mean that they don’t like gay marriage. We mean that they want gays put to death.”

Islam the religion, in Ms. Hirsi Ali’s view, is a Trojan horse that conceals Islamism the political movement. Since dawa is, ostensibly, a religious missionary activity, its proponents “enjoy a much greater protection by the law in free societies than Marxists or fascists did in the past.” Ms. Hirsi Ali is not afraid to call these groups out. Her book names five including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which asserts—and in turn receives in the mainstream media—the status of a moderate Muslim organization. But groups like CAIR, Ms. Hirsi Ali says, “take advantage of the focus on ‘inclusiveness’ by progressive political bodies in democratic societies, and then force these societies to bow to Islamist demands in the name of peaceful coexistence.”

Her strategy to fight dawa evokes several parallels with the Western historical experience of radical Marxism and the Cold War. Islamism has the help of “useful idiots”—Lenin’s phrase—such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has denounced Ms. Hirsi Ali as an “extremist.” She sees that smear as a success for dawa: “They go to people like the SPLC and say, ‘Can we partner with you, because we also want to talk about what you guys talk about, which is civil rights. And Muslims are a minority, just like you.’ So, they play this victim card, and the SPLC swallows it. And it’s not just them, it’s also the ACLU. The Islamists are infiltrating all these institutions that were historic and fought for rights. It’s a liberal blind spot.”

Western liberals, she says, are also complicit in an Islamist cultural segregation. She recalls a multiculturalist catchphrase from her years as a Somali refugee in Amsterdam in the early 1990s: “ ‘Integrate with your own identity,’ they used to tell us—Integratie met eigen identiteit. Of course, that resulted in no integration at all.”

Ms. Hirsi Ali wants the Trump administration—and the West more broadly—to counter the dawa brigade “just as we countered both the Red Army and the ideology of communism in the Cold War.” She is alarmed by the ease with which, as she sees it, “the agents of dawa hide behind constitutional protections they themselves would dismantle were they in power.” She invokes Karl Popper, the great Austrian-British philosopher who wrote of “the paradox of tolerance.” Her book quotes Popper writing in 1945: “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

I ask Ms. Hirsi Ali what her solution might be, and she leans once more on Popper, who proposed a right not to tolerate the intolerant. “Congress must give the president—this year, because there’s no time to lose—the tools he needs to dismantle the infrastructure of dawa in the U.S.” Dawa has become an existential menace to the West, she adds, because its practitioners are “working overtime to prevent the assimilation of Muslims into Western societies. It is assimilation versus dawa. There is a notion of ‘cocooning,’ by which Islamists tell Muslim families to cocoon their children from Western society. This can’t be allowed to happen.”

Is Ms. Hirsi Ali proposing to give Washington enhanced powers to supervise parenting? “Yes,” she says. “We want these children to be exposed to critical thinking, freedom, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rights of women.” She also suggests subjecting immigrants and refugees to ideological scrutiny, so as to deny entry, residence and naturalization to those “involved with, or supportive of, Islamism.”

In effect, Ms. Hirsi Ali would modernize the “communism test” that still applies to those seeking naturalization. “I had to answer questions when I applied for citizenship in 2013: ‘Are you, or have you ever been, a communist?’ And I remember thinking, ‘God, that was the war back then. We’re supposed to update this stuff!’ Potential immigrants from Pakistan or Bangladesh, for instance, should have to answer questions—‘Are you a member of the Jamat?’ and so on. If they’re from the Middle East you ask them about the Muslim Brotherhood, ‘or any other similar group,’ so there’s no loophole.”

Might critics deride this as 21st-century McCarthyism? “That’s just a display of intellectual laziness,” Ms. Hirsi Ali replies. “We’re dealing here with a lethal ideological movement and all we are using is surveillance and military means? We have to grasp the gravity of dawa. Jihad is an extension of dawa. For some, in fact, it is dawa by other means.”

The U.S., she believes, is in a “much weaker position to combat the various forms of nonviolent extremism known as dawa because of the way that the courts have interpreted the First Amendment”—a situation where American exceptionalism turns into what she calls an “exceptional handicap.” Convincing Americans of this may be the hardest part of Ms. Hirsi Ali’s campaign, and she knows it. Yet she asks whether the judicial attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s—themselves a reaction to the excesses of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s—might have left the U.S. ill-equipped to suppress threats from groups that act in the name of religion.

I ask Ms. Hirsi Ali if there’s any one thing she would wish for. “I would like to be present at a conversation between Popper and Muhammad,” she says. “Popper wrote about open society and its enemies, and subjected everyone from Plato to Marx to his critical scrutiny. I’d have liked him to subject Muhammad’s legacy to the same analysis.

“But he skipped Muhammad, alas. He skipped Muhammad.”

Mr. Varadarajan is a research fellow in journalism at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

***

***

Also see: