The Incomprehensible Argument

Understanding the Threat, June 20, 2018:

When U.S. federal courts side with a terrorist group (Hamas/CAIR) making a legal argument that muslims must be given the opportunity to abide by foreign law (sharia), it is dangerous and absurd.  When “freedom of religion” is sited as the reason, the argument becomes incomprehensible.

While there have been many judicial rulings surrendering liberty to jihadis in the U.S., last week’s ruling by a federal judge forcing the state of Washington to serve special meals at special times during Ramadan to muslims in the state prisons is an exemplar of how sharia gets imposed in Western nations by ignorant government officials.

The most widely used text book in U.S. Islamic schools – What Islam is All About – states “Islam is not a religion, however, but a complete way of life.”

All of Islam defines Islam as a “complete way of life” governed by sharia (Islamic law).

Yet, an organization – the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – representing the terrorist group Hamas, pushes the narrative that America must make way for sharia (Islamic law) because it is a “religious right” for muslims.

In fact, sharia is a legal system that is obligatory for muslims to obey and commands how they dress, interact with their family, how they govern, how they wage war, and includes “every field of law – public and private, national and international, together with enormous amounts of material that Westerners would not regard as law at all.” (Islam: A Sacred Law, Feisal Abdul Rauf)

For any muslim to make the argument in a U.S. federal court that muslims must be granted “privileges” because it is their “religious right” when in fact they are seeking compliance with sharia (foreign law) is an absurd legal argument.  When the argument is made by a proxy for a terrorist group and American courts rule in favor of the jihadis/terrorists, the result is the forceful compliance of sharia upon U.S. citizens inside the U.S. legal system.

Are UK Officials More Worried About Muslim Rape Gangs OR Those Who Speak About Them

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 1, 2018:

Tommy Robinson has been following, filming and reporting on muslim rape gangs for years.  He was arrested in the United Kingdom (UK) May 25, 2018 for breaching the peace after live-streaming video outside the courtroom of a trial of 26 men and 2 women charged with offenses including rape, trafficking, sexual activity with a child, child neglect, child abduction, supplying drugs and making of indecent images of children.

Robinson founded the English Defense League (EDL), an organization he developed to protect soldiers from violent muslims.  He left this group soon after its development, and is now a reporter and activist.

He exposes information about rape gangs, yet the British government works to silence free speech on the issue out of fear of being labeled “Islamophobic.”

The perpetrators of the UK Rape Gangs are muslims.

The judge in the case ordered a media blackout after Robinson’s arrest.  He is now in prison for 13 months.

Let’s understand the history of rape in Islam.

The Koran states Mohammad is an “exalted standard of character” (68:4) and a “beautiful pattern of conduct” (33:21) for Muslims to follow for all times.

The hadith is the collection of all the practices, sayings and traditions of Mohammad.  The most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam is a man named Bukhari, who lived in the 9th century.

Bukhari records Islam’s prophet Mohammad married Aisha when she was 6 years old, and consummated the relationship when Aisha was 9 (Bukhari 3894).

This means it is lawful under sharia for a 60 or 70 year old man to marry a 10 year old, for instance, because of the example of Islam’s Prophet.

Mohammed – the perfect example of a man in Islam – slaughtered two Jewish tribes and the remnants of a third at Khaybar, and instructed Muslims to wage jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.

After the assault on the Jews of Khaybar, Mohammad ordered Kinana bin al-Rabi be tortured until he disclosed the location of the group’s treasure.  A fire was lit on Kinana’s chest to force him to do so, and then Mohammad had him beheaded.  Mohammad then took Kinana’s wife Safiya for his own.  (Life of the Prophet, Ishaq, p. 515)

“We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected.  Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai.”  (Bukhari volume 1, book 8, Hadith 367).

Does this mean taking captives and having sex with a nine year old is “a beautiful pattern of conduct”?

Muslim rape gangs involve teenage girls and girls as young as 9.  These girls are raped, passed around to members of a gang or family, and often sold into sex trafficking.  These girls might also be made to “recruit” other victims.

Today the “rape gangs” are often called “grooming gangs.”

The term “groomed” refers to the different types of coercion that might be used to entice the girls.  Suspects gain the girls’ cooperation by giving them drugs or alcohol, and force drugs on the girls to get them addicted so they will stay around without a fight.

Children can also be lured into a gathering where older men offer them nice things.  Sometimes older men will use young boys to lure female victims to them, and then rape the girls after they are in their control.

Peer on peer abuse is also prolific.  Younger boys will rape younger girls.  Many times victims are told if they don’t cooperate their family members will be harmed and family homes will be torched in an arson attack.  Victims are physically assaulted, and many report being raped by over 20 men at a time.

Suspects will often justify their behavior by saying the young girls are “prostitutes.”

The UK’s official response to this barbarism is to have a media blackout and underreport these crimes by ignoring the fact these assaults are perpetrated by muslims.

In the past, the U.S. response has been to regurgitate the lie that “Islam is a religion of peace” or that “Islam does not condone such behavior,” and work with the very Islamic leaders driving the jihadi network fostering barbaric behavior like child-rape.

Hollywood and the media give the rapists a soft place to land and refuse to speak truth boldly about these and other horrors coming from the Islamic community.  They instead attack those speaking truth by launching ad hominem attacks and invoking “Islamophobia” towards all who dare mention Islam in any way regarding these matters.

“I have been made victorious through terror.” – Mohammed (Bukhari, Vol 4, Book 52, 220)

Tommy Robinson sits in prison in the UK for reporting on Muslim rape gangs.

Will the United States allow the same thing to happen here?  Is it happening already?

***

****

Recording of a presentation by Dr Mark Durie at the Q Society of Australia in Melbourne on 18 July 2013: From Pakistan to the Streets of Oxford – Understanding the Ideological Foundation of Sexual Abuse in Islam.

U.S. Islamic Schools Teaching What ISIS Teaches

Understanding the Threat, by Stephanie Ameiss, April 26, 2018:

Would it be a problem if ISIS jihadis were teaching in U.S. Islamic schools?

If you answer “Yes” then why is it okay to have the same material ISIS teaches being taught in U.S. Islamic schools?

The text book What Islam is All About is the most widely used 7th grade text book being taught in Islamic schools across America.

In the description of how to use this book, author Yahiya Emerick  explains, “Nearly every statement, paragraph or teaching is followed by reference from the Koran.”

As is taught at the highest level schools of Islamic jurisprudence, What Islam is All About teaches that Islam is not a religion, but a complete way of life governed by sharia (Islamic law).

This textbook for 7th grade children teaches there are 3 duties in Islam:  Dawah, Jihad, and Encouraging Good & Forbidding Evil (“good” and “evil” as defined by sharia).

Dawah is the call or invitation to Islam, and is mandatory before muslims can wage jihad.

“The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…and the war continues until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.”

[Um dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law]

What Islam is All About teaches children that “Jihad” is “most often associated with physically confronting evil and wrongdoing” and the book has a picture of a tank, just in case the children are confused about its meaning.

Ensuring the children understand the duty of jihad in Allah’s eyes, this textbook teaches muslim-American children that those who are killed in jihad are “martyrs” or “Shahids” who immediately go to paradise.

In fact, this is exactly what doctrinal Islam teaches.

The Islamic legal definition of jihad in sharia (Islamic law) is warfare against non-Muslims.

Sharia (Islamic law) clearly states:  “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims”  (Um Dat al Salik, Reliance of the Traveller, Book O9.0)

To be clear, U.S. citizens who attend U.S. Islamic schools are being taught to preform Dawah before they wage Jihad, and that both are duties of all muslims.

From What Islam is All About:

“If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to paradise.”

“Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead. No, they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord.”  Koran 3:169

 

What Islam is All About  explains “There is no such thing as terrorism in Islam. Nor can a Muslim ever be a fundamentalist because there is only one way to follow Islam.”

In Islam, “Terrorism” means killing a muslim without right, i.e. killing a muslim for a non-sharia prescribed reason.

On March 12, 2018, 17 year old Corey Johnson, of Jupiter, Florida, spent the night at a friend’s house he knew for over 10 years.  Yet, Corey killed another boy staying over by slitting his throat, and stabbed his friend’s mother and younger brother before being arrested.

Corey did what he did because, according to him, the Koran commands him to do such things.  Specifically, in this case, to kill those who mock Islam or muslims.

What Islam is All About  explains, the goal of Islam is to promote peace, justice and order in society. This means peace according to Sharia.

It goes on to say “The basis of the legal and political system is the Sharia of Allah” and “The duty of muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”

How is any of this contrary to the teachings of Al Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram, Abu Sayef, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Shabaab or any other jihadi organization on the planet?

Does Jihad Really Have “Nothing to do with Islam”?

Gatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, Feb. 24, 2018:

  • “National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.” — Richard Higgins, NSC official.
  • At the heart of the problem lies the fantasy that Islam must be very similar to other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, out of which it was, in fact derived.
  • The use of force, mainly through jihad, is a basic doctrine in the Qur’an, the Prophetic sayings (ahadith), and in all manuals of Islamic law. It is on these sources that fighters from Islamic State, al-Qa’ida, al-Shabaab, and hundreds of other groupings base their preaching and their actions. To say that such people have “nothing to do with Islam” could not be more wrong.

Recently, US National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster once again downplayed the significance of faith by claiming that Islamic ideology is “irreligious”; meanwhile, up to 1.5 billion Muslims continue claiming, as they have done for 1400 years, that it is.

As Stephen Coughlin, an expert on Islam, told Gatestone, “It is the believers who define their religion, not the non-believers. If someone says his religion is that the moon is made of green cheese, that has to be your starting point.”

On February 20, 2017, President Trump appointed McMaster, a serving Lieutenant General of the US Army, to the important position of National Security Advisor, after the forced resignation of Michael T. Flynn. McMaster came to the post with a reputation for stability, battlefield experience, and intelligence. According to the Los Angeles Times:

“It is not an overstatement to say that Americans and the world should feel a little safer today,” tweeted Andrew Exum, an author and academic who saw combat in Afghanistan and writes widely about military affairs.”

After the controversies surrounding McMaster’s predecessor in office, McMaster came as a safe hand.

It was not long before divisions opened up within the NSC, however, with quarrels, firings, and appeals to the president. Many controversies remain today. By July, it was reported that Trump was planning to fire McMaster and replace him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo. By August, however, McMaster’s position seemed secure.

U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss issues McMaster’s spell at the NSC has brought to light, except for one: McMaster’s position on Islam and terrorism. It became a cause for contention early in McMaster’s incumbency and continues to engender divisions, not just among NSC staff, but also with the president. The general’s viewpoint, which he has often expressed, is that international terrorism has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, a notion he seems to believe to the point where he has banned the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism” — a term that Trump uses often.

In an all-hands meeting of the NSC on February 23, 2017, three days after his appointment as NSC Director, McMaster said jihadist terrorists are not true to their professed religion and that the use of the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” does not help the US in working with allies to defeat terrorist groups:

“The phrase is unhelpful because terrorist organizations like ISIS represent a perversion of Islam, and are thus un-Islamic, McMaster said, according to a source who attended the meeting.”

More recently, on December 3, in an interview with Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace, McMaster stated that “we make sure we never buy into or reinforce the terrorist narrative, this false narrative that this is a war of religion”. He followed this by elaborating on the criminality and supposed secularism of Muslim terrorists:

“Those who adhere to this ideology are really irreligious criminals who use a perverted, what the President has called a wicked interpretation of religion, in an effort to recruit young, impressionable people to their cause, to foment hatred”.

In taking that stance, McMaster has broken with many members of his own staff, several of whom he was later to fire, and with the Trump administration itself. This desire to deny a connection between Islam and terrorism or to distinguish between a “pure” Islamic religion and “perversions” of it had been for many years a characteristic of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, as well as Hillary Clinton’s tweets, when “this has nothing to do with Islam” was an oft-repeated refrain.

One of the people whom McMaster fired is Richard Higgins, a top NSC official who had written a memoir in which he warned of the dangers of radical Islam and its alliance with the far Left. In a lengthy document, Higgins wrote:

Globalists and Islamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed…Islamists ally with cultural Marxists…[but] Islamists will co-opt the movement in its entirety…

Because the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national, and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives…

These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum, and institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies.

Clearly, Higgins did not mince his words, yet what he wrote seems entirely appropriate for the NSC, a body charged with the protection of the United States from radicalism of all kinds. According to Meira Svirsky, writing for the Clarion Project

Lamenting the lack of education given to government officials about radical Islam, Higgins previously wrote, “National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.” [1]

Higgins’s stress on the lack of education about Islam is a vital recognition that something has been going wrong for years when it comes to American and European official responses to the religion and its followers. Rightly cautious about genuine Islamophobia, the growth of hate speech and intercommunal strife, governments and their agencies have adopted policies and measures to preserve calm even in the face of growing levels of terrorism by Muslims. Europeans in Paris, Barcelona, Manchester, London, Brussels, Berlin and Nice, to name just a few places, are at the forefront of attacks inspired by Islamic State, al-Qa’ida and other radical groups. But the US has suffered the heaviest casualties, with thousands slaughtered in the 9/11 attacks.

In the face of a renascent and at times violent Islam, politicians have adopted the policy of denying any connection between terrorist events and Islam. Many religious leaders have done the same. McMaster has adopted this policy, keeping him in line with established approaches:

“HR McMaster, a respected army lieutenant general, struck notes more consistent with traditional counterterrorism analysts and espoused consensus foreign-policy views during a meeting he held with his new National Security Council staff on Thursday”.

According to Svirsky:

McMaster believes the “Islamic State is not Islamic,” going so far as to describe jihadists as “really irreligious organizations.” As did former president Obama, he opposes use of any language that connects Islam to terrorism.

McMaster also rejects the notion that jihadists are motivated by religious ideology. Instead, he says they are motivated by “fear,” a “sense of honor” and their “interests,” which he describes as the roots of human conflict for thousands of years. He believes U.S. policy must be based on “understanding those human dimensions.”

There may be signs that McMaster, though he still has some way to go, at least recognizes that some deeply religious Islamic organizations are a threat to the West. Writing on December 13, Meira Svirsky cites a speech McMaster gave at Policy Exchange in Washington:

“Declaring the ideology of radical Islam an obvious and ‘grave threat to all civilized people,’ U.S. National Security Adviser General H.R. McMaster singled out the Muslim Brotherhood and its brand of political Islam as a specific threat”.

In that speech, the general spoke of Turkey and Egypt as two major sources of support for the Brotherhood, including its Palestinian branch, Hamas. He clearly sees the threat, but does not, as yet, fully understand the meaning of its religious dimension (however much other factors play a role in terrorism).

I have no wish to be disrespectful towards McMaster, who carries out a vital task in securing the lives and property of so many Americans, but I fear his statements show that he has little or no knowledge of Islam, its teachings, or its history. Either that or he has invented a form of Islam that bears no resemblance to the religion that many of us have spent most of our lives studying. Not implausibly, he has given ears to advisors, possibly including Muslims, who have sought to play down any possible link between violence and the Muslim faith.

This willingness, even eagerness, to misrepresent Islam plays directly into the hands of anti-Western Muslims, radicals who anticipate the coming of an apocalyptic global Caliphate. In a recent article, Professor Richard Landes of Boston University lists the many ways in which this is done:

Only the most fervent of true believers could think that, even with Allah’s help, the global Caliphate was possible. In order to succeed, da’wa [outreach; proselytizing] Caliphaters needed the assistance of the targeted kuffar population to:

  • Disguise their ambition to subject the kuffar, by downplaying jihadi acts of war and their deployment among the targeted population.
  • Insist that “except for a tiny minority,” the “vast majority” of Muslims are moderate and peaceful, and Islam is a “Religion of Peace” that has nothing to do with the violence of jihadists.
  • Accept those who fight for the Caliphate with da’wa as “moderates” who have “nothing to do” with “violent extremists.”
  • Engage these “moderate” Caliphaters as advisors and consultants in intelligence and police work, as prison chaplains, community liaisons, college teachers, and administrators.
  • Present Caliphater war propaganda as reliable information, as news.
  • Attack those who criticize Islam (including Muslims) as xenophobic and racist Islamophobes.
  • Adopt the Caliphater’s apocalyptic enemy as their own, so that the kuffar join in an attack on one of their key allies.
  • Legitimate jihadi terrorism as “resistance” and denounce any recourse to violence in their own defense as “terrorism.”
  • Respect the dignity of Muslim beliefs even as Muslims heap disdain on their beliefs.
  • Take seriously Caliphater invocations of human rights when, in reality, they despise those rights for women, slaves, and infidels.
  • Welcome an angry “Muslim Street” in the heart of their capital cities.

At the heart of the problem lies the fantasy that Islam must be very similar to other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, out of which it was, in fact derived. This would mean that Islam consists only of doctrines about a single God, heaven and hell, sin and punishment, spiritual endeavor, together with practices such as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and alms-giving. There would be nothing to concern us were that the case, and certainly no reason to connect the faith with a few supposedly fanatical people who have misguidedly distorted it and turned to violence.

But that would be to ignore the totality of Islam. Apart from 12 years at the start of Muhammad’s mission, Islam has encompassed far more than worship and moral behavior. From the moment Muhammad led his followers from Mecca to Medina in the year 622, his religion became a system of government, of law, and of war. Several battles were fought with his Meccan opponents; the Jews of Medina were either driven out by force or executed and enslaved, and Muhammad returned to Mecca as its conqueror. On his death, his first successor embarked on a two-year war to bring recalcitrant tribes back within the fold, sent out armies to the north and, in just a few years, began the wave of invasions that made Muslims victorious across most of the known world. Of the first four “rightly-guided” caliphs, one was assassinated by an Iranian captive and the other two by other Muslims. Muhammad’s grandson, Husayn, was killed with his family in Karbala in 680 by the second of the Umayyad caliphs, before further internal wars. Jihadi wars continued, year in and year out, after that; they are still invoked by modern terrorists. Islam has never been at peace with the non-Muslim world.

The use of force, mainly through jihad, is a basic doctrine in the Qur’an, the prophetic sayings (ahadith), and in all manuals of Islamic law. (For examples, see hereherehere and here.)

If jihad were permitted only in self-defence, then excuses implying aggression, as we have seen, would need to be readily available to justify attacks. As the Washington Post wrote a fortnight after the attack on the United States on 9/11/2001:

At the heart of the bin Laden opus are two declarations of holy war — jihad — against America. The first, issued in 1996, was directed specifically at “Americans occupying the land of the two holy places,” as bin Laden refers to his native Saudi Arabia, where 5,000 U.S. troops have been stationed since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The two holy places are Muslim shrines at Mecca and Medina.

In 1998, he broadened the edict to include the killing of “Americans and their allies, civilians and military . . . in any country in which it is possible to do it.”

It is on such Islamic sources that fighters from Islamic State, al-Qa’ida, al-Shabaab, and hundreds of other groupings base their preaching and their actions. To say that such people have “nothing to do with Islam” could not be more wrong.

It is not only wrong, it is demeaning to the many ex-Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq and reformist Muslims who are fully aware of the connection, but are often apparently considered delusional or even fanatical. Last year saw the publication of Ibn Warraq’s detailed study, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas, and Ideology, which takes the reader through all the violent or violence-promoting individuals and groups in Islamic history, with discursions on the thinking behind them. With few exceptions, these individuals and groups are far from minor or obscure.

In chapter one of his book, Ibn Warraq examines what he calls the “Root Cause Fallacy”, whereby politicians, security advisers, and others deflect attention from religion as a motivator for terrorism. He shows that most radicals and terrorists are not primarily inspired or justified by poverty, lack of knowledge of Islam, lack of education, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestine, anti-Semitism, U.S. Foreign policy, Western Imperialism, or revenge for the Crusades. He refers (p. 31) to David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute and his view that:

“Westerners attribute too many of the Arab world’s problems ‘to specific material issues’ such as land and wealth. This usually means a tendency ‘to belittle belief and strict adherence to principle as genuine and dismiss it as a cynical exploitation of the masses by politicians. As such, Western observers see material issues and leaders, not the spiritual state of the Arab world, as the heart of the problem'”.

Overall, Ibn Warraq draws on an extensive body of scholarship, mainly from leading Western scholars of Islam and authoritative sources such as The Encyclopedia of Islam. McMaster and others, who repeat the mantra that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, are hardly in a position to override comment by individuals who have spent a lifetime deeply involved in the study of Islam through its original sources.

Ibn Warraq, moreover, cites (pp. 139-140) several Western and Muslim scholars who have said repeatedly that the idea that the “true jihad is a spiritual struggle” is completely unauthentic. It is arguments based on a reading of texts in Arabic, Persian, Urdu and other languages that deserve to be treated as the basis for policy-making, identifying which people may be potential terrorists, or evaluating the true intentions of US-based Muslim associations such as CAIR or ISNA.

Clare Lopez, vice president of research and analysis at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has commented on the broad lack of knowledge about Islam and how it has distorted thinking within national bodies. Beginning with criticism of McMaster, she raises broader issues:

McMaster is just wrong for NSC on so many counts. I think at least in part because, like others across national security at his level, who made rank in years post-9/11, he was systematically denied fact-based training about Islam, jihad, Shariah and the MB [Muslim Brotherhood] – whose affiliates, associates, operatives, fellow travelers and useful fools remain embedded within and close to the federal government and local law enforcement at various levels.

Now, of course, anyone who’s ever taken the oath to the Constitution has an affirmative obligation to know the enemy and that McMaster did not do this is his responsibility alone.

Those who got promoted within the military-security establishment over the past eight years got there precisely because of a “willful blindness about Islam”.

The problem for the United States government, Congress, Senate — and many important agencies which find themselves called on to discuss, monitor, report on, or make policies about Islam, American Muslims, Muslims worldwide, and more — is knowing where to look for accurate and authentic information. In the past, all of these have depended on Muslim academics, uncritical and cosmetic non-Muslim professors and commentators such as John Esposito, Karen Armstrong and the many teachers identified by Campus Watch; numerous university and college Islamicists with vested interests in posts funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim states (see here); self-appointed Islamic authorities such as CAIR, and amateurs within US institutions.

Criticism of Islam has become taboo and has been denounced as a right-wing or even far-right prejudice. The present writer, however, a political centrist, sees nothing wrong in bringing reasoned and fact-based criticism to bear on Islam, just as one would to every other ideology, from Marxism to Fascism. One can also appreciate the stunning contributions Muslims have made to science, art, architecture, calligraphy, music, and the spiritual endeavors of Sufis and Shi’i mystical philosophers. It is important for everyone to step back and bring accuracy and balance to the way we regard a large and expanding religion. 

Denis MacEoin has an MA in Persian, Arabic and Islamic History from Edinburgh University and a PhD (1979) in an aspect of Shi’i Islam in 19th-century Iran. He taught Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Religious Studies Department of Newcastle University and has published many books and articles on Islamic topics.


[1] There is evidence that the international Muslim Brotherhood is working for influence in US politics and that it has already placed people within several US bodies. See here.

UTT Throwback Thursday: US Government’s Failure to Address Domestic Threat

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug.24, 2017:

Summary

The attacks of 9/11 were conducted against the U.S. homeland with support from the Islamic Movement inside the United States.  The U.S. government’s response to fight on battlefields overseas, while leaders of the U.S. Islamic Movement exclusively provided “advice” to our leaders, led to strategic defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq despite the fact the U.S. military crushed the enemy on the battlefield.

Why?  How did this happen?

The United States lost and is losing this war today because, contrary to U.S. warfighting doctrine, the United States government has failed to identify the enemy we face and the doctrine they use as the basis for why they are fighting.

The enemy clearly articulates that sharia (Islamic Law) is the basis for everything they do.

Now the United States is re-engaging in Afghanistan using some of the same leaders who crafted the losing war strategy in the first place, who still have not defined the enemy, using the same allies who are still our enemies (eg Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, et al), while ignoring the massive jihadi network in the United States, which is the primary front for our enemy in this war.

Then (Post 9/11)

After 9/11, President Bush stated the purpose for our operations in Afghanistan was to “make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans,” and that U.S. military actions are “designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice.”

During the entire Bush administration the United States never defined the enemy.  Yet, the administration and all key government agencies were primarily advised by Muslim Brotherhood leaders which led to the United States writing constitutions for Afghanistan and Iraq (2005) creating Islamic Republics under sharia (Islamic Law), thus achieving Al Qaeda’s objectives in those two countries.

That is when we lost the war.

Now (August 2017)

In announcing renewed military operations in Afghanistan, President Trump stated the objectives of this endeavor include:  “Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terrorist attacks against America before they emerge.”

First, if we kill all ISIS fighters, the Global Islamic Movement will roll on.  This is bigger than merely ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

As UTT reported on Monday in its article “US Islamic Movement Enters Final Stage” the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and its allies INSIDE the United States are experiencing the culmination of six decades of work domestically to overthrow our nation.  At the same time, the State Department is meeting with representatives of Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which raises grave concerns.

Mr. Trump’s original instincts were correct.  He should stick with his gut.  We should not engage in Afghanistan as his National Security Advisor and others recommend.

This is a strategic distraction from the real war here at home.

The pattern we see between the U.S. government response after 9/11 and today are very similar:

9/11:  Jihadis attack the homeland using airliners killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

Response:  U.S. fails to define the enemy in any of its national security documents. U.S. military attacks targets in Afghanistan, while using U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leaders as primary advisors on how to fight the war.

Result:  Strategic loses in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Significant gains for Islamic Movement inside the U.S.

Today: U.S. Islamic Movement in “Final Stage” of its Civilization Jihad using hard-left Marxists as leading edge of their violent actions.

Response:  U.S. fails to define the enemy in any of its national security documents.  National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster demonstrates no knowledge of enemy doctrine (sharia).  U.S. Launches renewed military operations in Afghanistan, while failing to pursue the MB and designate it a terrorist organization.  The U.S. government continues to allow the MB to operate in the open in the United States.

Result:  While the U.S. puts its strategic focus on Afghanistan, the cooperating Islamic and hard-left/Marxist Movements will achieve the intentional outcome of their campaign – increased civil disorder, chaos, and a high likelihood of open civil war.

The Islamic Movement in the United States includes over 3000 Islamic centers/mosques, over 800 Muslim Student Associations (MSA) on every major college/university campus, over 255 Islamic Societies, and many others as has been detailed in previous UTT reports.  Nearly all of the jihadi attacks on the United States in the last 16 years, including the attacks of 9/11, had direct support from this network.

The 9/11 attacks had direct support from Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar.

Yet, this network remains untouched by the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security.

If the United States government wants to thin the jihadi herd, as the President states is his desire, he can begin with dealing with the mothership of their Movement – the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) – and jihadi leaders inside America like Nihad Awad, Ibrahim Hooper, Oussama Jamal, Salam al Marayati, Mohamed Magid, Azhar Azeez, Javaid Siddiqi, Sayyid Syeed, Muzammil Siddiqi, and so many others, as well as those aiding and abetting them like the President of the Southern Poverty Law Center Richard Cohen and the entire SPLC, and Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson.

U.S. Islamic Movement Enters Final Stage

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug. 20, 2017:

The leading edge of the Islamic Movement’s Final Stage in the United States is upon us.  The violence is now beginning in earnest.

One day in the future, history will record with great astonishment how military leaders, politicians on both sides of the aisle, intelligence professionals, and others were catastrophically unprofessional for 16 years after 9/11/2001, thus putting the American people in grave peril.

Understanding the Threat’s (UTT) has trained thousands of local, state and federal officers/agents on the Islamic threat (sharia and the jihadi network in the US), the hard-left Marxist/Socialist/Communist threat, and how these Movements work together to bring down the U.S. government.

The response to UTT’s training is always the same:  (1) none of those in attendance, including FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force agents/officers, have ever heard the information presented, and (2) they all agree it is critical to protecting their communities.  See some comments here.

When UTT’s President John Guandolo was recruited out of the FBI by the Department of Defense (end of 2008) he briefed a number of 3 and 4 star generals and admirals, numerous Members of Congress, the Chairmen of the House Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Judiciary Committees, former Directors of intelligence agencies, former National Security Advisors, and others.  None of these good men and women were aware of the massive jihadi network in the United States, nor what sharia is and how it operates to drive the Global Islamic Movement.

UTT’s Chris Gaubatz’s experience (2008) undercover inside the headquarters of U.S. Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) revealed “America’s largest muslim civil rights group” – as they are called – is engaged in fraud, sedition, espionage, and terrorism.  Yet CAIR and its leaders are unimpeded in their work by U.S. agencies sworn to dismantle them.

Today, the situation is significantly worse than it was nine years ago.  The enemy has gained significant ground in the war while our leaders have barely scratched the surface on understanding the danger facing the Republic.

The Muslim Brotherhood has increased their ground game:

*Insinuated Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers into Mr. Trump’s administration and utilized their network to cease efforts to designate the MB a terrorist organization – with support from Mrs. Clinton.

*Created an army of attorneys to do battle in U.S. courts to slow down judicial action by US government

*Expanded their Islamophobia campaign to bring social media giants Facebook, Twitter and others onboard to stifle free speech, specifically truthful speech about Islam.

*Broadened their cooperative efforts with hard-left Marxist organizations to directly attack those individuals and organizations speaking truth about Islam.

* Leaders within the Islamic Movement:  (Hatem Bazian) call for an intifada (violent uprising) in the United States; (Linda Sarsour) call for jihad against the President; numerous U.S. imams are calling for the annihilation of Jews here; and many Islamic leaders are openly calling for sharia to be imposed in the United States.

Now, the violent war UTT has warned about and predicted inside the United States has begun.

The Islamic Movement’s initial tool for violence in the United States is the anarchists and “domestic terrorist” hard-left Marxist/Socialist Communist organizations, including Antifa, Black Lives Matters, and dozens of groups forming together.

Many of these people and groups call for the killing of the President, as did Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal.

These are the Brown Shirts of the 21st century.

These violent and subversive Movements have hundreds if not thousands of groups giving them direct support like the Southern Poverty Law Center, J-Street, Transgender Law Center, Center for New Community, Franciscan Action Network, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Interfaith Alliance, Jews Against Islamophobia, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, American Center for Outreach, ACLU, Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, Arab American Institute, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, NAACP, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, National Lawyers Guild, Anti-Defamation League and many others.

For a more extensive list of the George Soros funded Marxists/anarchist groups click HERE.

These two massive Movements in the United States funded by external and internal entities whose stated goal is the destruction of the United States.  They publish doctrine, websites, speeches, and books which call for the overthrow of our government, and then take actions in furtherance of these goals.

This is not only a violation of numerous federal laws, but these actions demand that all people who are in positions of authority and who have sworn an oath to the Constitution have a duty to take actions to destroy these Movements and defend our Republic.

As the violence escalates we will see social unrest like occurred in Baltimore, Ferguson, Berkley, and elsewhere. But it will be much worse.

Remember the Brown Shirts were killed on the Night of the Long Knives and Adolf Hitlers Black Shirts took charge.  So it is in history with Movements like this.

Remembering this is a war of narratives – and Information War – more than anything else, all of these escalating actions will come with a pre-planned propaganda campaign just like we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Here are five things citizens are encouraged to do:

  1. Understand the Islamic threat. Use the resources at http://www.UnderstandingtheThreat.com and know what sharia is and what it says. Sharia drives the enemy in this war. Be weary of those who vilify the Muslim Brotherhood, and then defend Islamic doctrine as being “peaceful.”  Remember, the Islamic Movement is the leading element in this war.  They are using the left as their tools.  Do not lose focus.
  2. Understand the play book of the hard-left Marxist Movement in the United States.  Read Rules for Radicals.
  3. Move quickly to educate open-minded people in your community, especially those with leadership qualities.  Remember Sheriffs and Pastors are the two groups of people we need most right now in this war.
  4. Develop the right mind-set. Think August 1939 Poland.  “Resistance Movements” can simply be citizens organizing to support those defending their states/communities in numerous ways.
  5. Know the foundation upon which this nation was created: the law of nature (legally defined as the will of God) and nature’s God (legally defined as “Holy Scripture”).

Leaders of the US Council of Muslim Organizations, the leading MB element in the US. General Masul of the Muslim Brotherhood Nihad Awad (also Hamas leader) is front row 3rd from right

For every person who becomes educated as to the true nature of the threats we face as a nation is another person who will be fully committed to defending it at a deep level.

Speak truth boldly.

If Muslims Are Honest About Jihad, They Think They’re Winning

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 16, 2017:

After 9/11/01, Americans were told Islam does not “stand for violence” and that Islam “rejects” violence, despite the fact the 19 hijackers were all muslims stating they killed nearly 3,000 Americans because it is a command from Allah.

Then we heard the “concept of jihad” was a part of Islam, but it is a muslim’s “struggle” to better himself or herself.

President Obama’s Counter-Terrorism advisor John Brennan, who became the Director of Central Intelligence, and – who we now know converted to Islam – then said “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

Mr. Brennan did not mention that Islam “purifies” the community by doing every thing necessary to impose sharia on the entire earth which includes:  giving non-muslims the option to convert to Islam, submit to sharia and pay the non-muslim poll tax (jizya), or be killed; by killing apostates – those who leave Islam; and by doing whatever else needs to be done to ensure the sharia is the law on the entire earth.

A few years ago while at my (John Guandolo) alma mater – the U.S. Naval Academy – I attended a day-long program on Islam which avoided any substantive discussion of the issues related to U.S. national security, sharia, Islam, and other related matters.  However, when asked by a midshipman what the word “jihad” means, I was surprised to hear two Islamic scholars sitting on a panel both immediately reply, “Holy war.”

The lesson for UTT readers today is this:  Muslims are more open and honest about their true intentions, the truth of what sharia commands, and the obligation upon all muslims to wage jihad (only defined in sharia as “warfare”) if they believe the Islamic Movement is close to victory.

In other words, you will know everything you need to know about sharia when Islam has you under it.  So, if members of the Islamic community openly explain their legal rights over you after sharia is imposed, it is a clear warning the muslim community believes it is winning or has won, and are simply waiting for their time to claim victory.

Two days ago I had a lengthy taxi ride with a Libyan muslim who explained Islam to me in great detail. Everything he said was in line with sharia.  He was very open, including his explanation of the time when the Islamic prophet Jesus returns to kill all the Jews and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam.  His honesty was refreshing, I must say.  But it was disturbing as well, because it illuminated his belief that he can speak so openly about these matters.

At the national level, jihadis like Linda Sarsour, Nihad Awad, Mohamed Magid, Salam al Marayati and so many others lie when tough questions are asked in order to deter U.S. leaders from understanding the threat.  However, if you listen carefully to their words and filter them through sharia, they are getting closer to the truth as time goes by.

The more muslims talk about sharia and jihad honestly, the more danger we are in.  The clock is ticking.