Islamic Operatives Use Soviet Tactics to Target Conservatives

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, August 9, 2018:

The Islamic Movement in the United States manifests primarily as an espionage and counterintelligence threat, not merely as a “terrorist” threat.

When operatives in the Islamic Movement meet with police chiefs, elected officials, FBI Directors, business leaders, Pastors, Rabbis and others, they portray themselves as friendly, but they are working to recruit and use them, much as U.S. government counterintelligence operatives recruit foreign assets.

These jihadi operations may take months or years to develop, but the benefits of having an influential American official working for jihadis is a major victory for the Islamic Movement.

Examples of successful penetration operations include:

President Clinton’s Islamic Advisor Abdurahman Alamoudi, who created the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Department of Defense and met with Mr. Clinton more than any other muslim in America, was an Al Qaeda financier who is now in federal prison.

Senator Richard Durbin’s go-to guy for all things Islamic prior to his hearing on the civil rights of muslims in America was Mohamed Magid and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  Magid was the leader of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which was identified by the Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and a financial support arm for Hamas leaders and Hamas groups overseas.

The Islamic Movement also identifies conservative threats to their Movement and targets them for destruction, ensuring they lose their influence.

When Irving, Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne publicly decried the Sharia Courts in Irving, she was targeted by muslim leaders.  Several months later the Clock Boy Operation was launched against her.  Democrats attacked her for her “civil rights” failures in the incident, and Republicans called for a review of the zero tolerance policy in incidents of this nature.  Mayor Van Duyne was left standing alone as Islamic leaders planned.

Most Patriots aware of Milwaukee’s Sheriff David Clarke were drawn to him for his outspoken call for law and order, strong stance on national defense, and for boldly stating America needs to police muslim communities.

Sheriff Clarke was also considered for positions inside the Trump Administration.

In walks Hedieh Mirahmadi.  A classic honey trap.

Dr. Hedieh Mirahmadi grew up a shia muslim of Iranian decent who later converted to sunni Islam.  Mirahmadi is an attorney with a degree in Islamic doctrine from the As-Sunna Foundation.  She is the founder of the World Organization for Resource and Development and Education (WORDE), and the former Secretary General of the Islamic Supreme Council of America.

Red flags about Ms. Mirahmadi include her close working relationships with Muslim Brotherhood organizations and leaders like Salam al Marayati, participation in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative, and the fact she publishes articles about Islamic doctrine (sharia) that are patently false despite the fact she has a degree in the subject.

Most notably, Ms. Mirahmadi works with federal agencies and police organizations around the United States to discuss “extremism” and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Yet, none of the groups with whom she works have demonstrated any level of understanding of the jihadi’s doctrine – sharia – nor the Muslim Brotherhood network and their modus operandi.

In fact, the agencies with which Mirahmadi work, have a completely counter-factual understanding of sharia and the Muslim Brotherhood.

So, the Islamic Movement targeted Sheriff David Clarke and sent Mirahmadi in.  To demonstrate the effectiveness of this operation, UTT offers the following:

Sheriff Clarke went from calling for police to patrol muslim neighborhoods 18 months ago to recently calling people on social media speaking truth about Islam “racists.”

When articles written by investigative journalist Laura Loomer were published a year ago about Hedieh Mirahmadi’s questionable background, Sheriff Clarke publicly attacked and mocked Loomer.

This week Sheriff David Clarke admitted he was duped, and openly stated Hedieh Mirahmadi is a Muslim Brotherhood operative.

The lesson for everyone reading this article is that David Clarke is one of many Patriots who have been duped by Muslim Brotherhood operatives acting on behalf of our Islamic foes, even if they are not intentionally doing so.

Twenty years Abdurahman Alamoudi was the “pillar of the Islamic community in Washington, D.C.” and turned out to be an Al Qaeda operative.

After 9/11, Anwar al Awlaki was considered the “new face of Islam in America” and gave presentations at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, but turned out to be an Al Qaeda operative killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

In 2005, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office Mike Rolince gave Mohamed Magid an award, and in 2016 FBI Director James Comey presented Magid with the FBI Director’s Award.

Mohamed Magid was the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), identified by the Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood organization which seeks to overthrow the U.S. government and establish an Islamic State.  Evidence entered into the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v HLF, Northern District of Texas, 2008) reveals ISNA provides financial support to Hamas organizations and Hamas leaders overseas.

Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization.

The threat from the Islamic Movement in the United States manifests itself primarily as an espionage and counterintelligence threat, not merely as a “terrorist” threat.

It is high time the U.S. government treats Islamic spies working to destroy America the same way it treated the Rosenbergs.

Exposé – Abdul El-Sayed – Marxist Jihad in Michigan – MUST WATCH!

Investigatve journalist Laura Loomer and Tom Trento expose the troubling background of Michigan’s candidate for Governor, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed. The election is tomorrow! Much more at Loomer’s YouTube channel.

Democrat candidate for Governor of Michigan, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed has a proven history and background with Muslim Brotherhood alignment and associations. His Marxist Jihad interactions in support of Mohamed Morsi during the Arab Spring, the supporters of his campaign – Linda Sarsour, Bernie Sanders, ISNA, and CAIR, and his Sharia compliant Islamic practices all relate the real plan he has for Michigan. WATCH THIS AND LEARN WHO THE REAL ABDUL EL-SAYED IS, HOW HE WILL GOVERN MICHIGAN, AND WHAT EVERY CITIZEN OF MICHIGAN SHOULD KNOW AS THEY VOTE ON AUGUST 7TH!

THIS CANDIDATE HAS PLANS TO “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM” MICHIGAN! 

Remember those words and what that meant to America?  It was NOT good!  And, it will NOT be good for Michigan!

Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed has played his hand very well to the constituents of Michigan!  Many have fallen under his spell and many are just part of the plan, working very hard for his final solution.

  • He has core Muslims siding with him only because he is Muslim, no other qualification!
  • He has the millennials jumping up & down on his every word!  Smiling, hoping he will pick them to stand with in front of the camera!
  • He has the Marxist/Socialist liberal left just waiting for every opportunity to show support!
  • He has known unindicted co-conspirators in clearly defined court cases, standing with him in support and in some cases are identified as his “de-facto” campaign manager.
  • His platform and his Sharia compliant beliefs collide, but when pressed for an answer, he has none!
  • His anti-Israel stand and support of Gaza, yet this topic is never asked during the campaign.
  • His hard cored Muslim Brotherhood history and background are NEVER questioned by any of the Michigan media.  Yet, when one opposing candidate does (Patrick Colbeck), Abdul’s reply is: “You may not hate Muslims, but Muslims definitely hate you!”

When will they learn that Abdul’s plan has played out before, in many cities, towns, and countries!   Look through history and it’s clear the end results are NOT pretty!

Michigan will make the decision on Tuesday, August 7th!    We can only hope they choose wisely!   Constitution or Marxist Jihad for Michigan?

***

WATCH: Founder of Sharia Crime Stoppers Says ‘Sharia Law Is In Michigan’

Big League Politics contributor Laura Loomer to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist. El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim, but his political platform and talking points directly contradict Islamic law.

Richard Manasseri is the co-founder of Sharia Crime Stoppers, an organization focused on training local law enforcement to understand the criminal behavior sanctioned under Sharia Law and what officers could encounter on the streets of America.

Loomer sat down with Manasseri and asked him about why it is important to know about Sharia and what people need to know about El-Sayed. Is El-Sayed practicing Taqiyya in order to become the next Governor of Michigan and advance Islam in the United States?

“There are 140 mosques in the state of Michigan…each of the Imams at these mosques is supreme,” according to Manasseri. “The mosque itself is a seed of government. Sharia law is in Michigan. We have had leaders of organizations like CAIR Michigan say that it is.”

Manasseri has three daughters and two grand daughters. For him, his biggest concern with Sharia Law is how it deems women as property. Like many, Manasseri worries that if El-Sayed is elected as Governor of Michigan, women in the state will begin to experience less rights under a Governor who practices a completely different legal code than the United States Constitution.

“We are concerned about the personal safety of individual people, and as we’ve said, that would primarily be women, who would be less safe under Abdul El-Sayed,” Manasseri said.

WATCH:

While Democrats in Michigan will deny the negative impact Islamic immigration has had on the state, and while they vehemently deny that Sharia Law exists in Michigan communities, Dawud Walid, the Executive Director of CAIR Michigan, is on the record happily admitting that Sharia Law is alive and well in Michigan.

El-Sayed is not only a Sharia compliant Muslim, but he is a Democrat socialist running on a Marxist political platform as a self-proclaimed “justice Democrat”. Some of the campaign talking points El –Sayed is campaigning on include socialized healthcare, legalization of Marijuana, free college tuition, abortion, opposition to fossil fuels, pro-illegal immigration, and anti-Israel foreign policy. If elected Governor, El-Sayed has vowed to abolish ICE and make Michigan a Sanctuary state where illegal immigrants are protected from deportation and immune to the actions of law enforcement agencies.

El-Sayed, who is running on the Democrat ticket as a “Justice Democrat”, refused to answer questions about his personal practice of Sharia and how Islamic law contradicts key platform stances in the Democrat Party when he was confronted at a campaign event in Michigan last week.

El-Sayed practices Sharia law in his personal life, and has stated that his “head touches the floor 34 times a day” during his Islamic prayers. His true colors as a Muslim were revealed in May of 2018 while he was speaking to the Michigan Press Association at the Kellogg Center in East Lansing, Michigan. While speaking, El-Sayed yelled at Senator Patrick Colbeck and said, “You may not hate Muslims, but ALL Muslims hate you.”

Colbeck is a Republican member of the Michigan Senate, and he is currently a Republican candidate running to become the next Governor of Michigan.

On Sunday, self proclaimed socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be in Michigan campaigning for El-Sayed, who has openly declared his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and has been endorsed by CAIR, both of which are designated terrorist organizations.

Also see:

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.

How Islam Apologists Like John Esposito Dupe Americans About Sharia

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, July 9, 2018:

Does Islam itself promote hostility for and violence against non-Muslims, or are all the difficulties between the West and Islam based on secondary factors such as “radical” interpretations of Islam, economics, and other grievances?

This is the fundamental question.

Obviously, if “anti-infidel” hostility is inherent to Islam itself, then the conflict becomes existential — a true clash of civilizations with no easy fixes and lots of ugly implications along the horizon. Because of this truism, those who whitewash Islam’s image in the West insist on the opposite: that current difficulties are temporal, and not rooted to innate Islamic teachings.

Enter Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know, co-authored by John Esposito and Natana J. Delong-Bas. The authors’ goal is to exonerate Sharia — which they portray as enshrining “the common good (maslahah), human dignity, social justice, and the centrality of the community” — from Western criticism or fear, which they claim is based solely on “myth” and “sensationalism.”

In their introductory chapters, they define Sharia as being built upon the words of the Koran and the Sunna (“example”) of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as contained in sahih (canonical) hadiths. They add:

Shariah and Islamic law are not the same thing. The distinction between divine law (Shariah) and its human interpretation, application, and development (Islamic law) is important to keep in mind throughout this book …

Whereas Shariah is immutable and infallible, Islamic law (fiqh) is fallible and changeable.

Next, the authors highlight how important Sharia is to a majority of Muslims. They cite a 2013 Pew Poll which found that 69% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa, 73% in South Asia, and 55% in Central Asia believe that “Sharia is God’s [Allah’s] divine revelation.”

Pew found that even larger numbers “favored the establishment of Shariah as official law”: 99% in Afghanistan, 84% in South Asia, 74% in the Middle East and North Africa, and 64% in sub-Saharan Africa.

So far so good: The authors’ introductory claim (that Sharia is fundamental to Islam) and statistics (that hundreds of millions of Muslims revere Sharia and wish to see it implemented) are correct.

Now, the aforementioned question: Is Sharia itself behind the intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism committed in the name of Islam?

Here, the hitherto objective authors shift gears and take on the mantle of apologists. Their thesis is simple: Any and all negative activities Muslims engage in are to be blamed on anything and everything — as long as it’s not Sharia.

In order to support this otherwise unsupportable position, and as might be expected, the remainder of the book consists of obfuscation, dissembling, and lots and lots of contextual omissions and historical distortions. A small sampling follows.

Sharia regarding women

The authors quote and discuss at length many Koran verses about women that seem positive (Koran 30:21, 3:195, and 2:187), without alluding to counter verses that, say, permit husbands to beat their wives (4:34) and treat them as “fields” to be “plowed however you wish” (2:223). Nor do they deal with Muhammad’s assertions that women are “lacking in intelligence” and will form the bulk of hell’s denizens, as recounted in canonical hadith.

They partially quote Koran 4:3: “[M]arry those that please you of other women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one.” This suits the authors’ purpose, which is to present the Koran as implicitly recommending only one wife, since it acknowledges the near-impossibility for a man to treat all wives equally.

Yet the authors deliberately left out the continuation of Koran 4:3. Perhaps because it permits Muslim men to copulate with an unlimited number of sex slaves (ma malakat aymanukum), even if the men are married.

Esposito and Delong-Bas also dissemble about child marriage, saying “classical Islamic law” permits it, but only when “the child reaches a mature age.”

Yet they make no mention that, based on Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha — that is, based on his Sunna, which is immutable and part of Sharia — this means nine is considered a “mature age.”

Freedom of religion and non-Muslims

The authors claim that “[t]here are more than 100 Quranic verses that … affirm freedom of religion and conscience.” They quote many at length, and then assert: “The guiding Shariah principle … underscored by Quran 3:28, 29:46, and 60:89, is that believers should treat unbelievers decently and equitably as long as the unbelievers do not behave aggressively.”

Yet they fail to mention or sideline the many contradictory verses that call for relentless war on non-Muslims — who are further likened to dumb cattle in Koran 25:44 — until they surrender, one way or another, to Islam (e.g., 8:39, 9:5, 9:29). They also fail to quote the verses that form the highly divisive doctrine of al-wala’ w’al bara’ (“Loyalty and Enmity”). This includes Koran 5:51, which forbids Muslims from befriending Jews and Christians. And Koran 60:4, which commands Muslims to harbor only “hate” for non-Muslims, until they “believe in Allah alone.”

Needless to say, they also ignore Koran 3:28, which permits Muslims to feign friendship for non-Muslims whenever the former are under the latter’s authority. (Such is the doctrine of taqiyya; see herehere, and here for examples; for other sanctioned forms of deception, read about tawriya, and taysir.)

It is, incidentally, because of all these Koran verses — because of Sharia — that the Islamic State forthrightly explained: “We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.”

The closest the authors get to addressing these issues is in a section titled “Can Muslims in the West be Loyal Citizens?” They respond with a “yes.” However, the evidence they cite are polls (based on wishful interpretations), which of course tell the reader little about the topic at hand: Sharia.

Jihad

As might be expected, when the authors reach the topic of jihad, their dissembling reaches a new level. They repeatedly insist that jihad, as enshrined in Sharia, is simply the Muslim counterpart of Western “Just War” theory, which teaches that war and aggression are permissible only in defense or to recover one’s territory from occupiers. They write: “The lesser or outer jihad involves defending Islam and the Muslim community.”

As usual, they spend much time quoting and elaborating on Koran verses that comport with this position, while ignoring or sidelining the many contradictory verses. In reality, mainstream Islam holds that the Koran’s “Sword Verses” (especially 9:5 and 9:29) abrogate all the peaceful ones, and declare that warfare against non-Muslims — for no reason other than that they are not Muslims — to be not just permissible but obligatory.

Koran 9:29 reads:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth [Islam] from the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.

What, exactly, is “defensive” about this verse?

Similarly, they claim that dar al-harb, or “abode of war” — Islam’s designation for all non-Muslim territories (such as Europe) that Muslims were historically in a permanent state of war with — “applied to other parties with whom Muslims were in conflict.” Again, they fail to mention that the primary reason Muslims were “in conflict” with them was because they were non-Muslim, and that all non-Muslim territories were by default part of the “abode of war,” except when treaties advantageous to Islam were drawn.

Instead, the authors write: “The territories classified as the abode of war were those that refused to provide such protection to Muslims and their clients” — thereby implying Muslims were hostile to, say, Europe because Europe was first hostile to Muslims. (The historical reality, chronicled in my book Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, was exactly opposite.)

The authors engage in other forms of subterfuge to defend their point and exonerate Sharia. For example, they frequently project a Western definition to Islamic terms and concepts. They write that Sharia is ultimately about “promoting good and preventing evil,” which sounds admirable. They then fail to point out that, based on the Koran and Sunna (that is, Sharia), conquering non-Muslim territories is “promoting good.” And that keeping women under wraps, indoors, and beating them as required is about “preventing vice.”

While admitting that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities are currently being persecuted, not only do the authors insist this has nothing to do with Shariah, but they invoke relativistic thinking: “Just as Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are often concerned with their rights and civil liberties as minorities, so some consider the rights and status of non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim countries to be a parallel issue.”

In other words, because Americans may view Muslims in their midst with suspicion, the ongoing enslavement and slaughter of Christians — more than 6,000 in Nigeria alone since January 2018 — and ban on or destruction of churches is a tit-for-tat. A “parallel issue,” which can only be solved when the West becomes less critical about Islam.

Relativism is also invoked during the authors’ brief treatment of apostasy in Islam: “Historically, apostasy was sometimes punishable by death in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” They claim that apostasy is still a major issue in Islam only due to “radical” interpretations or politics, and they bolster their position by again quoting the same Koran verses that seem to support freedom of religion. They do not mention, for example, the canonical hadith (meaning part of Sharia) in which Muhammad said: “Whoever leaves his religion [Islam], kill him.”

Such is how Islam’s skilled apologists dupe the West: they admit to some of the more controversial aspects that many other apologists shy away from — namely that Shariah is indeed foundational to Islam, and that most Muslims revere and wish to see it implemented — and then, having established trust with the reader, they slip back into the “game.” They portray all the intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism committed daily in the name of Islam as products of anything and everything except Sharia: fallible Muslim interpretations, self-serving clerics and terrorists, socio-economic pressures, Western criticism or encroachments.

Contrary to its title John Esposito’s and Natana J. Delong-Bas’s Shariah is not “what everyone needs to know.” Rather, it’s what non-Muslims need to believe in order to give Sharia, which is fundamentally hostile to all persons and things un-Islamic, a free pass.

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.

Did Jihadis Just Execute a Bombing Operation at a CA Mall?

Understanding the Threat, by Jon Guandolo, July 9, 2018:

Evidence reveals jihadis attempted to bomb the Los Cerritos Center in California this past weekend.  This is one more in a string of numerous incidents across the United States indicating an increase in willingness by jihadis to use violence to silence those who speak truth about Islam.

Recently UTT has reported:

  • Some local police work harder to protect jihadis in their communities than the citizens.  See UTT article here.
  • Senior leaders of the FBI aid and abet known jihadi leaders and Islamic Centers.  See UTT video here.
  • U.S. Islamic schools teach what ISIS teaches.  See UTT article here.
  • Jihadis are in control of operations of some U.S. ports. See UTT article here.

So it should come as no surprise when a muslim slides his backpack under the table at the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) booth in Cerritos, California and walks away.  Literally.

UTT assesses this incident as a thwarted jihadi attack.  Lets look at the facts.

Those of you who follow UTT may remember in August of 2017 UTT published an article on the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) and its leader Steve Amundson.

This weekend, Steve and his team, including a pastor, set up their booth in a busy part of a mall called The Los Cerritos Center in Cerritos, California near Los Angeles.  As they always do, CJC hands out literature about Islam and the threat it poses to America and free people.

Over the last 6 months, Steve has reported an increase in physical assaults on him and his team.

The day began with two men snapping pictures of the CJC booth, then getting on the phone.  Steve Amundson witnessed this and recognized it as “red flag one.”

Steve has seen this behavior before, and it is usually the scouts looking for the CJC booth in order to alert others.

Later, two muslim women approached the booth and began cursing CJC’s people and calling them liars.  As mall security, which was standing in the immediate vicinity, was speaking with the women, a white haired muslim male moved over to the booth and slide his backpack under that table.  He then began speaking with the pastor from CJC.

After a short conversation, the muslim man walked away.

Amundson approached the pastor assuming the man was a friend.  When the pastor told Steve the man was an irate muslim complaining about CJC’s activities, Steve was immediately concerned for their safety.  He called security to stop the man, which was done.

Here are Steve Amundson’s words to describe what happened:

“I told security he left a backpack underneath our booth. The Moslem refused to take the backpack. We started to take cover behind cement pillars and told security to either call the bomb squad or have the guy pick up the backpack. He finally agreed to very carefullypick it up and security escorted him away. Security will not say at least right now if he was arrested, if the bomb squad was called or what. Was this a dry run or the real thing?”

Based on conversations Steve Amundson had with authorities, it does not appear the man’s backpack was ever searched.

This is a very serious incident, and either a dry run for a jihadi attack or the real thing.  The evidence leads UTT to believe this was the real thing.

The jihadis continue to ratchet up their aggressiveness, attacks, and violence here in America.

Will the FBI aggressively pursue this, or continue working with the jihadis to ensure no one puts a piece of bacon on the door knob of the local mosque?

Jihadis Work to Disarm Free People and Arm Themselves

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that “existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution.”

[U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, US v Heller]

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

The right to keep and bear arms exists with or without a U.S. Constitution and with or without a United States of America.  The right exists in nature and is, therefore, a right that exists for all humans.  If the right to defend and protect oneself exists, then we have the right to bear the tools to do so.

The Second Amendment does not GIVE us the right to bear arms, it PROTECTS it.

Marxists and Jihadis know the inalienable rights to self-defense and free expression are bedrocks of free Western societies, and that is why they attack it with such fervor.

Using the Islamic Law of Slander under the mask of “Islamophobia” jihadis have persuaded many Western leaders to shut down all expression which offends muslims.

This is, as the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood calls it, Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

Now, Islamic leaders (aka “Jihadis”) are working with the help of their Marxist friends to disarm free people while arming themselves.

Case in point:  the jihadi Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is forcing Britons to surrender  even kitchen knives using the lie that he seeks to “protect” the community.  Meanwhile, stabbings in London continue to skyrocket because they are being perpetrated by muslims who are not surrendering their weapons, not even their kitchen knives.

Here in the United States, sources inside the muslim community tell UTT Muslim Brotherhood mosques and organizations are encouraging muslims to purchase firearms and join the NRA, while at the same time the jihadis’ Marxist collaborators are pushing to disarm Americans.

Using their seditious Marxists allies in the media, every domestic left-wing and jihadi attack – including those in Alexandria (VA), Las Vegas (NV) or Orlando (FL) – is used to demonize weapons and create momentum for anti-gun legislation, instead of highlighting the Marxists and jihadis actually doing the killing.

In short, our enemies, be they Marxists or jihadis, work diligently to destroy the inalienable liberties of Patriotic Americans, with no intention of doing so within their own communities.

Lessons

  1. Understand the threat & understand America’s Founding Principles.
  2. Never surrender any liberty, in any amount, for any reason.
  3. Identify Marxist & jihadi operatives and organizations at the local level and use all legal means to remove them from your community.