Americans Will Win This War In the Shadows of the Heroes of Flight 93

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, September 10, 2018:

On 9/11/2001, the U.S. Government failed to protect America, and Islamic jihadis flew planes into two World Trade Center buildings in New York (American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175) and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia (American Airlines flight 77) killing nearly 3,000 people.

     

But on United Airlines flight 93, average American citizens demonstrated leadership, courage, and initiative and gave the last full measure of devotion to this nation by ensuring that airplane would not be used to do the kind of devastation we saw in New York and Arlington.

And so it is today.  Citizens will win or lose this war at the local level.

It is 2018.  Contrary to U.S. warfighting doctrine, the United States government has still not identified the “enemy” we face in this war.  You cannot hit the bullseye if there is no target.

Since 9/11, 159 Americans have been killed and 502 wounded in 71 jihadi attacks perpetrated by muslims in 24 different states inside America.

Texas leads the nations with eight (8) separate attacks.

Fifteen (15) of the nineteen (19) Islamic jihadis who attacked America on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.  Evidence exists revealing Saudi intelligence operatives conducted a “dry run” for the 9/11 attacks one year prior to 9/11/01, and the Saudi Ambassador to the United States – Prince Bandar – and his wife passed money to an account used to support 9/11 hijackers.

Yet, the United States government calls Saudi Arabia an “ally” in the “War on Terror.”

Pakistani Intelligence helped move Al Qaeda personnel on the ground in Pakistan and Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, and Osama bin Laden lived for years in Pakistan less than a mile from the Pakistani Military Academy.

Yet, the United States government calls Pakistan and “ally” in the “War on Terror.”

U.S. military generals, State Department officials, National Security advisors, and directors of U.S. intelligence agencies continue to rely upon Islamic “coalition partners” and Islamic advisors to tell them how to fight the war.

We LOST the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is not because our military soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen failed to do their jobs – it is because our generals/admirals and civilian leaders failed and continue to fail to Understand the Threat and identify the enemy.

Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayef, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb u Tahrir, Jamaat e Islami, Tabligi Jamaat, and all Islamic nations on the planet under the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) clearly state they intend to establish an Islamic State (caliphate) under sharia (Islamic law) through all means necessary.

The enemy very clearly makes their intentions known.  The enemy is not the problem.  Our leaders are the problem.

U.S. leadership has failed and continues to fail America and Americans are dead because of it – nearly 700 killed or wounded since 9/11 here at home.

President Trump stands virtually alone in this administration as someone who has some semblance of an understanding Islam is the problem and sharia is the threat doctrine of our enemy.

Because of all of this, this war will be won or lost at the local level.

Here is what citizens must do if America is to win this war:

  1. Know and understand sharia.  Speak truth boldly.
  2. Organize citizens who understand the threat into small teams to focus their efforts on educating and activating:  police; prosecutors and judges; legislators; pastors/rabbis; school officials; business leaders (chamber of commerce); and local politicians.
  3. Give each team simple focused tasks.
  4. POLICE:  Give a copy of the book Raising a Jihadi Generation and the UTT Episode 1 DVD to your local police chief and sheriff.  Encourage your local police chief and sheriff to bring the UTT’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Network” course to their jurisdiction.  This is the only program of its kind in the U.S. which gives police tools to map out, investigate and prosecute the jihadi network in your community.
  5. PROSECUTORS/JUDGES:  Share UTT information with prosecutors and judges you know, and encourage them to host a UTT training.  If able, show them examples of the jihadi network in their city/county and how they operate – ie they (suit-wearing jihadis) portray themselves as helpful and friendly yet still have the same objectives as Al Qaeda.
  6. LEGISLATORS:  Work with patriots involved with legislative efforts at your state house to increase the strength of state Racketeering statutes and increase the list of predicate crimes to include “Terrorism.”  Work to make “Conspiring to overthrow the state constitution” a state felony in your state.
  7. PASTORS/RABBIS:  Educate local church leaders, including pastors, about the threat of Islam and encourage them to cease all “Interfaith Outreach” as it is today, since all U.S. interfaith outreach efforts are driven by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood via the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
  8. SCHOOL OFFICIALS:  Firmly ensure Islam is not being taught in your local schools, nor are children compelled to openly state the shahada (Islamic statement of faith).  Work with organizations like TruthinTextbooks.com to ensure social studies and history books are actually teaching historical facts not revisionist history.  Ensure the school board, principles, PTA leaders and others are aware that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a front for the terrorist group Hamas, and has no place in any discussions or activities dealing with American school children.  See “CAIR is Hamas” document here.  DO teach children about America’s founding principles, specifically, “The law of nature and nature’s God” and what that legally means and how it relates to the foundation of U.S. law and government.
  9. BUSINESS LEADERS:  Identify key patriotic business leaders in the community, and educate them on the threat (once you understand it!).  Have team members ready to publicly call for boycotts and participate in public protests outside businesses who support jihadi organizations domestically or overseas.  Work to promote courageous men and women who understand the threat to be a part of your local chamber of commerce.
  10. LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS:  Mayors, city council members, and other local officials who are open-minded and able to hear and receive facts and truth should be engaged and taught about the threat of the Islamic Movement in the United States and your local area.  These officials should be be encouraged to know this threat and act accordingly in the day to day disposition of their duties as community leaders.  They should know they will be held accountable, and the team working with them should consistently be giving them positive or negative feedback based on their actions.

In all of this, local leaders should know your teams will stand with them through all of this if they do the right thing and speak truth.  There does not need to be a public proclamation by all these officials that they understand the threat.  Many will get much more done by quietly shutting the doors to the jihadis that have been open to them for so long.

The most important thing is the know the threat first before you ever decide to act.  When you act you must have a reasonable understanding of how the jihadis will respond so you will be prepared to counter-act them accordingly.

On 9/11/01, American citizens on United Airlines flight 93 took charge and won the day by ensuring a greater tragedy did not take place.  They gave their lives for all of us, as have thousands of American warriors on battlefields across the world.

Will you stand up and do your duty now?

Marxists Continue to Lie and Defend Jihadis in America

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, August 3, 2018:

Enemies of the United States continue to lie and provide cover for jihadis in the U.S. while defaming those speaking truth about real threats to the Republic.

In an article entitled “American Islamophobia’s Fake Facts” published July 31, 2018 in a little-known online blog,  the author lies and defends terrorists (jihadis) in an attempt to challenge the mountain of evidence reagarding the Islamic Movement in the United States.

While the article may never be read by more than a handful of people, the arguments in it are often raised by those collaborating with America’s enemies, so UTT thinks it wise to give our readers they ammunition they need to defeat these false and often nonsensical comments.

The article in question can be found here.

Here are the article’s main arguments followed by UTT’s rebuttal with facts:

“A major theme of those falsehoods is telling the U.S. public that Islam is inherently dangerous and that American Muslims, even if they do not embrace extremist religious beliefs or violent actions, are still a threat to national security.”

In fact, all Islamic doctrine mandates war against non-muslims until the world is under Islamic rule.  There is no book of Islamic law (sharia) nor a text book used in U.S. Islamic schools – or any other Islamic school for that matter – that teaches another “version” of Islam.

That said, neither UTT nor other prominent national security organizations believe all “American Muslims are a threat,” but we have made clear that muslims who adhere to sharia and seek to impose it on others in any way, are a threat to liberty since sharia necessarily enslaves people, including muslims.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) By-Laws state their objectives are to establish an Islamic State under sharia – same as ISIS and Al Qaeda.  The doctrinal writings of the MB make clear their main line of operation is in the non-violent realm.  Espionage, counterintelligence, subversion, political warfare, and the like are their primary tools to overthrow the U.S. government.

Conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government is a violation of U.S. Federal Code, Title 18, Sections 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy) and 2383 (Conspiring to Overthrow the Government).

Evidence in the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history [US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), Northern District of Texas, 2008] reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement.

“The Brotherhood has not been designated as a terror organization by the U.S. government, and there are not the slightest grounds for thinking it, or any other secret force, controls any national Muslim-American group.”

Let us start with the fact that the designated terrorist group Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  If the finance department of a major corporation were laundering money, the indictment would not read “Finance Department, Company X” – the company would be indicted.

The fact the entire Muslim Brotherhood has not been designated a terrorist organization is a reflection of a failure by U.S. officials, not an indicator the MB is not a danger to the American people.

The evidence in the US v HLF trial reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here.  These include, but are not limited to:  Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), Muslim Students Association (MSA), Islamic Medical Association (IMANA), Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), and many others.

Evidence from other federal trials reveal the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are both Muslim Brotherhood organizations with CAIR being the 4th organization created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the United States.

A declassified document from the FBI’s Indianapolis office dated December 15, 1987 states:

“The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was organized by the leaders of the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada (MSA) in 1973 as the parent organization of various Muslim groups in the U.S. and Canada. The leadership of NAIT, MSA and other Muslim groups are inter-related with many leaders and members of NAIT having been identified as supporters of the Islamic Revolution as advocated by the Government of Iran (GOI). Their support of JIHAD (a holy war) in the U.S. has been evidenced by the financial and organizational support provided through NAIT from Middle East countries to Muslims residing in the U.S. and Canada.”

A declassified FBI confidential informant (CI) report dated 8/17/1988, details the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United States at the time and states:

“(CI) advised that in addition to the internal political structure and organization of NAIT as controlled by the IIIT leadership that as members of the IKHWAN they are involved in organizing external political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government. (CI) has advised that the Ikhwan is a secret Muslim organization that has unlimited funds and is extremely well organized in the United States to the point where it has set up political action front groups with no traceable ties to the IIIT or its various Muslim groups. They also have claimed success in infiltrating the United States government…the IIIT leadership has indicated that in this phase their organization needs to peacefully get inside the United States Government and also American universities. (CI) noted that the ultimate goal of the Islamic Revolution is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and that violence is a tool…”

The “Ikhwan” is the Muslim Brotherhood.

The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood does not control “any Muslim-American group” is ludicrous.

“The document, dated May 1991 and titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” is real, but there is no evidence that it represents the views of anyone other than the single Brotherhood member who wrote it.”

An Explanatory Memorandum was discovered during the 2004 FBI raid of the Annandale, Virginia home of senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operative Ismail Elbarasse.

The author of the document – Mohamed Akram Adlouni – was a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Shura Council and is listed as the number 2 man for the U.S. MB’s Palestine Committee, also knows as Hamas in the United States.  Therefore, the author was not some random muslim as the article infers.

The Memorandum begins with confirming the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood previously approved strategic goal:  “The general strategic goal of the Group in America which was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference for the year [I987] is “Enablement of Islam in North
America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim
Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to
expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents
Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.”

Mohamed Akram Adlouni worked to bring the goal – stated above and approved the the Muslim Brotherhood leadership – to fruition.

Oddly, the author of the article admits Islam is working to be a “civilization alternative.”  What is this but a revolutionary strategy to replace the Constitutional Republic with and Islamic State under sharia, in violation of U.S. federal code?

Following the presentation of the Memorandum to U.S. Brotherhood leadership, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood officially published its “Implementation Manual” which implements many of the items discussed in the Memorandum.

Examples of this include:  programs for youth and women, creation of media and political organizations, and others.  Most notably, however, are:

(1)  The historical and ideological details in An Explanatory Memorandum are consistent with other Muslim Brotherhood doctrine, to include MilestonesToward a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy and the speech given by U.S. MB leader Zeid al Noman in Missouri in 1981 detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s history in America.  The transcript of this speech was entered into evidence in the US v HLF trial.

(2)  In section 20, An Explanatory Memorandum states:  ” We must say that we are in a country which understands no language other than the language of the organizations, and one which does not respect or give weight to any group without effective, functional and strong organizations.”  After the Memorandum and the Implementation Manual were published, the number of Islamic organizations created, beginning in 1992, increased drastically and remains at 80-120 Islamic organizations created annually in the United States – exactly what these plans call for.

(3) The stated role of the MB in America per An Explanatory Memorandum is to wage Civilization Jihad to “destroy Western civilization from within” and to “sabotage” our “miserable house” by OUR hands – getting Western leaders to do their bidding for them.  The U.S. MB has succeed in doing this on numerous occasions.

When the U.S. State Department wrote the constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan creating Islamic Republics under sharia – which fulfilled Al Qaeda’s objectives in those two places – that is Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

When Muslim Brotherhood groups ISNA, MPAC, and CAIR petitioned President Obama to shut down training inside the U.S. government which factually detailed the domestic and international Islamic threat, but “offended muslims,” the President shut the training down.  That is Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

“The other main thread in the anti-Muslim narrative — the charge that mainstream Muslim-American organizations generally, and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) in particular, have ‘terror ties’ — is similarly based on a single piece of ‘evidence’…The document that supposedly verifies the claim that CAIR and other groups are linked to Islamist terrorism is a list of ‘unindicted co-conspirators’…In the more than 11 years since the list was made public, no new information has emerged that corroborates the inflammatory assertion that CAIR or the other Muslim-American groups are terrorist organizations or fronts for Hamas.”

The fact the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Hamas organization – a designated terrorist organization – is in no way based on the unindicted co-conspirators list.  It is, however, important to mention the U.S. government identifies CAIR in the unindicted co-conspirators list as being a “Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee” which is Hamas, and Hamas members are called “terrorists.”

Here are a few of the many facts revealing CAIR is Hamas:

  1. The Palestine Committee (Hamas) Meeting in 1994 lists CAIR as the 4th organization operating under it (Hamas). This document was entered into evidence at the US v HLF trial.
  2. Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government and many governments around the world.
  3. In a 2003 Senate Sub-Committee hearing on “radical Islam,” Senator Charles Schumer (NY) stated, “To make matters worse, the prominent members of the Council’s (CAIR’s) current leadership who you Mr. Chairman invited to the hearings today, they declined to testify, also have intimate connections with Hamas.”
  4. In the December 2007 government filing in the US v Sabri Benkhala appeal (Eastern District of Virginia), the government stated: “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
  5. In a document retrieved from CAIR’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. by one of its interns – Chris Gaubatz who was actually working undercover – CAIR openly discussed supporting Osama bin Laden. The document was titled “Proposed Muslim Platform for 2004” (dated 3/08/04) and states, in part, “Attempt to understand Islamic movements in the area, and start supporting Islamic groups including Mr. bin Laden and his associates.”
  6. In a 2004 FBI raid at the Annandale, Virginia residence of Ismail Elbarasse, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leader, the archives of the U.S. MB were discovered. One of the documents found listed the leaders of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas). On the list were the names of CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad (alias Omar Yeheya).
  7. In the government filing rebuking CAIR’s motion to have its name removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case, U.S. prosecutors stated, “As of the date of this response, the Court has entered into evidence a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking CAIR and its founders to the HLF and its principals; the Islamic Association for Palestine and its principals; the Palestine Committee in the United States, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook; and the greater HAMAS-affiliated conspiracy described in the Government’s case-in-chief.”
  8. In the government filing rebuking ISNA/NAIT’s motion to have their names removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case, U.S. prosecutors stated, “The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP, and the UASR. CAIR was later added to these organizations…the mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support Hamas.”
  9. In ruling to leave CAIR on the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case, Federal Judge Jorge Solis listed a portion of the overwhelming evidence against CAIR and wrote: “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with the HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”
  10. In a 3-0 ruling, an Appellate panel agreed to leave CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT on the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case because of the overwhelming evidence.
  11. In a February 2010 affidavit from an FBI Special Agent in the immigration proceedings for Hamas leader Nabil Sadoun in Dallas, Texas, the affiant declared the U.S. Palestine Committee was affiliated with Hamas. He further identified four (4) Hamas organizations created by the Hamas in America: Holy Land Foundation, Islamic Association for Palestine, United Association for Studies and Research, and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
  12. In a letter dated February 12, 2010 to U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (NC) from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Ronald Weich, Mr. Weich wrote “Enclosed (is) evidence that was introduced in that trial (US v HLF) which demonstrated the relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas.”
  13. In a letter dated April 28, 2009 from the FBI’s Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, to U.S. Senator John Kyl (AZ), the FBI leader details why the FBI cut off all formal ties to CAIR and identifies it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial because of its relationship with Hamas.

UTT encourages its readers to print this article and keep it handy when ignorant or nefarious people attempt to minimize the massive jihadi threat inside the United States.

We need a much greater sense of urgency in dealing with this threat, and that includes destroying the intentionally false comments and publications by enemy sympathizers and collaborators.

Congressional Muslim Brotherhood Hearing Reveals Danger of Not Speaking Truth About Islam

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.

Coda

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.

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.