Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 12, 2018:
This is, as UTT has made clear in the past, an important line of operation in this war and one which should be pursued with great vigor.
However, statements made during the hearing raise serious concerns of a continued gross lack of understanding of the threat by drawing broad distinctions between Muslim Brotherhood doctrine and “true Islam.”
Since the “true Islam” referred to during the hearings does not exist, and in fact the “version” of Islam articulated by the International Muslim Brotherhood – as well as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and others – is core Islamic doctrine, the difference between the two is a fantasy and is no place to try to build strategies for victory.
Testimonies Raising Concern
The testimony of Dr. Hillel Fradkin from the Hudson Institute agreed the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal is to establish an Islamic State, yet placed the root of this idea at the feet of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna, and did not acknowledge Muslim Brotherhood doctrine is core Islamic doctrine.
Fradkin went on to say that “This approach entailed the gradual transformation of society to Brotherhood principles before the seizure of political power, in Egypt and elsewhere.” Dr. Fradkin attributed this “gradualist” approach as an invention of al Banna.
In reality this “approach” comes from core Islamic doctrine. It is progressive revelation, and simply reaffirms the exact same methods used by Islam’s perfect man, Islam’s prophet Mohammad, to implement Islam in society.
In his testimony, Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies stated, “Many Muslim Brotherhood branches subject their members to rigid indoctrination processes and vet their
members for their commitment to the organization’s ultimate goal, which is to empower the Brotherhood’s politicized and deeply intolerant interpretation of Islam.”
The question must be asked, since this comment was made in testimony on Capital Hill, how is the “Brotherhood’s politicized and deeply intolerant interpretation of Islam” different from what 12 year old muslims are taught in U.S. Islamic schools? How does it differ from what the highest authority in Islamic jurisprudence – Al Azhar – teaches Islamic scholars?
It does not.
Mr. Schanzer went on to say, “Factions of the Brotherhood without a history of violence or terrorism finance do not warrant scrutiny,” and recommended the U.S. should “Designate the violent actors while keeping a close eye on non-violent ones.”
Since the global Islamic Movement’s primary road to victory is in the non-violent realm, to focus primarily on the violence – as the enemy wants us to do – is to lose the war.
Zuhdi Jasser, a muslim doctor from Arizona identified himself as a “devout muslim” in his testimony.
In his statement, Dr. Jasser said, “Neither Islam nor Muslims are monolithic and should not be treated as such by anyone.”
The problem with this statement is two-fold. First, it is untrue. The thing that binds the Islamic world together is the obligation, under penalty of death, for muslims to obey sharia and work to impose it on the world. There is no “version” of Islam that does not require this.
Secondly, the statement that Islam is not monolithic and very hard to understand, is something UTT teaches its students to repel with the truth. It is on UTT’s radar because it has been a talking point for the Islamic Movement for over 20 years.
Dr. Jasser also asserted, “For us (muslims) it is a very personal mission to leave our American Muslim children a legacy that their faith is based in the unalienable right to liberty and to teach them that the principles that founded America do not contradict their faith but strengthen it.”
In fact, there is no book of Islamic law or any Islamic school text used in the United States – or elsewhere for that matter – which teaches muslims to adhere to America’s founding principles. In fact, the most widely used text book in U.S. Islamic schools, What Islam is All About, reads: “The duty of muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”
In the end, Dr. Jasser recommends the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood gradually beginning with a few Islamic nations overseas, but NOT in the United States.
The testimony of Ambassador Daniel Benjamin denied the clarity of the International Muslim Brotherhood’s objectives and their controlling doctrine (sharia) when he testified, “There is no singular, monolithic Muslim Brotherhood…there is no central administration linking these disparate groups. In character and matters of doctrine, they vary greatly…Does the Muslim Brotherhood constitute a global threat? Here too, I would answer that it does not. Most of the groups that are said to be Muslim Brotherhood affiliates or franchises support democracy and abjure violence.”
Setting aside the fact the leadership of the International Muslim Brotherhood hosts regular meetings to discuss strategy and assess their progress, these comments leave listeners/readers with the idea that different levels of sharia implementation in different Islamic nations by the Muslim Brotherhood is synonymous with a lack of unified doctrine or modus operandi, which is demonstrably untrue.
To say the MB rejects violence is to be wrong. See their by-laws here.
The Brotherhood calls for the implementation of sharia on the planet.
It is all about sharia. That is what links the entire global Islamic Movement together.
Notable are the comments by Congressman Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts during the hearing which reveal a continued lack of understanding of the Islamic threat by major components of the U.S. government. After listing examples of violence advocated and perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Lynch said, in part, “Meanwhile, democratically elected political parties that also fall within the Muslims Brotherhood umbrella represent a significant voting block in the Parliaments and government coalitions of some of our key counterterrorism allies in the middle east and north Africa…the State department lists Tunisia along with Jordan and Morocco as our committed partners in the coalition to defeat the Islamic State.”
And therein lies the problem. Tunisia, Jordan, and Morocco are all parties to the OIC which served the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” to the United Nations in 1993 which states how all 57 Islamic states on the planet view the rest of the world and how non-muslims are to be treated – through the lens of sharia.
The Enemy’s Unified Objective
The enemy in this war unambiguously and unanimously identifies itself as “muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State under sharia.”
Different elements of the enemy’s army have different roles and different methods to get to the same end – an Islamic State under sharia.
Every Islamic nation on earth is a party to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which calls for sharia on the earth.
Al Qaeda, ISIS, and thousands of violent jihadi organizations on the earth state their objective is an Islamic State under sharia.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s By-Laws state their purpose is to establish an Islamic State under sharia.
All Islamic doctrine (sharia) requires muslims to wage war against non-muslims, in accordance with sharia, until an Islamic State is established under sharia.
Enemy’s Main Line of Operation: Non-Violent Action
The idea the U.S. should only focus on groups or individuals engaged in violence is the same failed idea bringing the U.S. closer to defeat in this war.
The enemy’s line of operation that continues to be wildly successful against the non-muslim world is their ability to create the optical illusion that one part of their forces is pitted against another part and, therefore, friendly to us.
For instance, when suit-wearing jihadis from Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stepped in front of television cameras and condemned the killings in San Bernardino, they appeared reasonable and “moderate” relative to the two jihadis and the dead bodies they left behind.
As the Islamic Movement moves forward and gains ground, they are increasingly willing to hold out the Muslim Brotherhood as the problem so long as it keep U.S. leaders from ever identifying Islam as the problem.
The concern UTT continues to voice is this: time is growing short.
Leaders in the Islamic Movement know they need to keep us off target just a little bit longer. So the closer American’s get to the truth, the more finely Islamic leaders parse the truth.
U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leaders have kept this administration from designating the MB terrorists for over a year and a half. As there is a growing consensus to designate them, the calls now come for a partial designation because – we are told – people who want to non-violently overthrow America’s Constitutional Republic and replace it with a barbaric system which enslaves human beings (sharia/Islam) – should not be the focus of U.S. efforts against the Brotherhood.
In focusing primarily on the violent elements of the Islamic Movement, the United States is in grave danger of losing a war it could easily win if it simply identified the threat – sharia adherent muslims.
Yesterday’s hearing did a good thing by moving the ball forward in America’s effort to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. As government officials move forward in their efforts to protect and defend this Republic, they will do well to remember that TRUTH is the standard to which national security professionals must cling if victory is still the objective.
Our objective, not the enemy’s.