Archive for the ‘Islamic terrorism’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Trump tackles three real problems

February 2, 2017

Trump tackles three real problems, Israel National News, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, February 2, 2017

By exposing American media bias, Muslim terrorism and Europe’s hypocrisy, U.S president Trump is drawing attention to three major issues which should be addressed. He receives much flak from many directions. Part of it comes from people who have not yet digested that Barack Obama is no longer U.S president. However, Trump, as a democratically elected president, should also not behave, even unintentionally, as if he believes in Mussolini’s claim: “Many enemies, much honor.”

The three real problems Trump is tackling all have impact on Jews or Israel.

As far as leading media outlets are concerned, a number of them are weighty distorters of the truth. If one follows the publications of the Camera mediawatch organization[1] over the years one sees how the New York Times regularly expresses anti-Israel bias in both its news and op-eds.

In an interview, Ricki Hollander and Gilead Ini, two senior analysts at Camera, accused the paper of advocacy journalism. They said: “Both its editorial pages and news reporting lean heavily toward an anti-Israel perspective…the NYT poisons the public’s mind against Israel by shaping the perception of the Jewish state as responsible for many, if not most, of the region’s ills. It does this with double standards in reporting about Israel versus her enemies and recounting only half the story. It sanitizes the role of Israel’s adversaries, including terrorist organizations, and obsessively indicts Israel at every turn.”[2]

If Trump would listen to a strategist’s advice he would not attack all media at the same time. He would rather put an experienced media-observer to the task of analyzing the New York Times’ bias, and quote examples of it regularly. This would be far more convincing than an overall attack on the media. The other media outlets would not show solidarity with the NYT, because why back up somebody else’s bias, when he is being attacked? Focusing all attacks on one paper by providing regular examples of it, is far more convincing for the public at large than spreading attacks over general media. Punishing the NYT, for instance, by excluding it from White House Press conferences would then also be seen by many as justified.

A second important problem Trump has raised is that of the major terrorism coming out of parts of Muslim societies. The approach to deal with this important issue could have benefited from some professional assistance, so that the temporary entry-ban of people from seven countries could have stated upfront that it did not concern green card holders, citizens with dual nationalities, those who have helped the US military and a few other categories from the countries concerned.

It would be very advisable that in future, there is further improved vetting of immigrants including screening for anti-Semitism.[3] Trump has suggested this during his election campaign as a possibility and Jewish organizations should support him on this. Was Trump wrong when he tweeted “Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, now”?  That might have prevented 9/11. He concluded his argument by saying rightly that there was a horrible mess in Europe.[4]

This brings us to the third issue which has some bearing on Jews. Trump understands that the European Union has for many years maintained policies on various major issues which are the opposite of his policies. Is there anything more alien to Trump’s policies than the German open door attitude toward refugees which started in September 2015? Only a part of those entering were registered by the German authorities. Hundreds of thousands came in without any registration.

Trump wants a strong United States, not one weakened through opposition by European masochists. The massive European criticism of the US entry-ban, provides further proof that one cannot count on halfhearted Europe too much in the battle against terrorism. The same is true as far as keeping hate mongers out. The non-selective immigrant policies of Western European countries have led to a huge influx of anti-Semites, mainly from Arab countries.

One voice dissenting from the European critic-brigades was hardly heard. Italian foreign minister Angelino Alfano told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that what Trump did was not in line with the Italian policy, yet, “Trump in his electoral campaign has made certain statements. On that basis he has won the elections. Now he carries out what he has said. He is not doing anything different from what he has promised.”

Alfano added: “Europe should not imagine that it can be both incompetent in managing the immigration issue and at the same time be respected for its judgments. It is not in a position to express opinions on the choices of others. Or do we want to forget that also in Europe walls have been erected.”[5]

Israelis understand the truth of what Alfano said. The EU claims to know what Israel should do with regard to the Palestinians, sometimes applying double standards which are the core of anti-Semitism. At the same time, the EU itself is in a major crisis. To paraphrase a regular statement of pseudo-progressives on Israel: By insisting that the Europeans start spending significantly far more on military issues –rather than being parasites living off the United States – Trump may well be saving Europe from itself.

Confronting media bias, Muslim terrorism, and European hypocrisy are all fields where Trump can make a major contribution to the upkeep of Western values – if he does not use overblown rhetoric. Then any good points he makes will get lost. Jews and Israel will benefit if he succeeds. One can only hope that Trump does not spread himself too thin by adding even more subjects to fight about.

________________________

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.camera.org/

[2]  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15413

[3] http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/09/22/trump-is-right-ban-antisemitic-immigrants-from-the-united-states/

[4] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825692045532618753

[5] http://www.corriere.it/politica/17_gennaio_30/alfano-quest-europa-non-puo-b5ea470a-e667-11e6-84c1-08780d9999f1.shtml

Categories: Antisemitism, European hypocrisy, Islamic terrorism, media bias, President Trump
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting

January 31, 2017

Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting, Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, January 28, 2017(?)

(Please see also, A Muslim Reformer Speaks Out About His Battle Against Islamism And PC. — DM)

On January 27, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to implement his proposed “extreme vetting” of those applying for entry visas into the United States. This article by Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes, who has written extensively on the practicality and enforceability of screening for Islamists, is an advance release from the forthcoming Spring 2017 issue of Middle East Quarterly.

3570Smoking Them Out (1906), Charles M. Russell.

Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27 establishing radically new procedures to deal with foreigners who apply to enter the United States.

Building on his earlier notion of “extreme vetting,” the order explains that

to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

This passage raises several questions of translating extreme vetting in practice: How does one distinguish foreigners who “do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles” from those who do? How do government officials figure out “those who would place violent ideologies over American law”? More specifically, given that the new procedures almost exclusively concern the fear of allowing more Islamists into the country, how does one identify them?

I shall argue these are doable tasks and the executive order provides the basis to achieve them. At the same time, they are expensive and time-consuming, demanding great skill. Keeping out Islamists can be done, but not easily.

The Challenge

By Islamists (as opposed to moderate Muslims), I mean those approximately 10-15 percent of Muslims who seek to apply Islamic law (the Shari’a) in its entirety. They want to implement a medieval code that calls (among much else) for restricting women, subjugating non-Muslims, violent jihad, and establishing a caliphate to rule the world.

For many non-Muslims, the rise of Islamism over the past forty years has made Islam synonymous with extremism, turmoil, aggression, and violence. But Islamists, not all Muslims, are the problem; they, not all Muslims, must urgently be excluded from the United States and other Western countries. Not just that, but anti-Islamist Muslims are the key to ending the Islamist surge, as they alone can offer a humane and modern alternative to Islamist obscurantism.

Identifying Islamists is no easy matter, however, as no simple litmus test exists. Clothing can be misleading, as some women wearing hijabs are anti-Islamists, while practicing Muslims can be Zionists; nor does one’s occupation indicate much, as some high-tech engineers are violent Islamists. Likewise, beards, teetotalism, five-times-a-day prayers, and polygyny do not tell about a Muslim’s political outlook. To make matters more confusing, Islamists often dissimulate and pretend to be moderates, while some believers change their views over time.

3567In 2001, the Pentagon invited Anwar al-Awlaki to lunch. In 2011, it killed him by a drone strike.

Finally, shades of gray further confuse the issue. As noted by Robert Satloff of The Washington Institute, a 2007 book from the Gallup press, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, based on a poll of over 50,000 Muslims in 10 countries, found that 7 percent of Muslims deem the 9/11 attacks “completely justified,” 13.5 percent consider the attacks completely or “largely justified,” and 36.6 percent consider the attacks completely, largely, or “somewhat justified.” Which of these groups does one define as Islamist and which not?

Faced with these intellectual challenges, American bureaucrats are unsurprisingly incompetent, as I demonstrate in a long blog titled “The U.S. Government’s Poor Record on Islamists.” Islamists have fooled the White House, the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury, the Congress, many law enforcement agencies and a plethora of municipalities. A few examples:

  • The Pentagon in 2001 invited Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Islamist it later executed with a drone-launched missile, to lunch.
  • In 2002, FBI spokesman Bill Carter described the American Muslim Council (AMC) as “the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States” – just two years before the bureau arrested the AMC’s founder and head, Abdurahman Alamoudi, on terrorism-related charges. Alamoudi has now served about half his 23-year prison sentence.
  • George W. Bush appointed stealth Islamist Khaled Abou El Fadl in 2003 to, of all things, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
  • The White House included staff in 2015 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in its consultations, despite CAIR’s initial funding by a designated terrorist group, the frequent arrest or deportation of its employees on terrorism charges, a history of deception, and the goal of one of its leaders to make Islam the only accepted religion in America.

Fake-moderates have fooled even me, despite all the attention I devote to this topic. In 2000, I praised a book by Tariq Ramadan; four years later, I argued for his exclusion from the United States. In 2003, I condemned a Republican operative named Kamal Nawash; two years later, I endorsed him. Did they evolve or did my understanding of them change? More than a decade later, I am still unsure.

Uniform Screening Standards

Returning to immigration, this state of confusion points to the need for learning much more about would-be visitors and immigrants. Fortunately, Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” signed on Jan. 27, 2017, requires just this. It calls for “Uniform Screening Standards” with the goal of preventing individuals from entering the United States “on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission.” The order requires that the uniform screening standard and procedure include such elements as (bolding is mine):

  1. In-person interviews;
  2. A database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants;
  3. Amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent;
  4. A mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be;
  5. A process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and
  6. A mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

Elements 1, 3, 5, and 6 permit and demand the procedure outlined in the following analysis. It contains two main components, in-depth research and intensive interviews.

Research

When a person applies for a security clearance, the background checks should involve finding out about his family, friends, associations, employment, memberships, and activities. Agents must probe these for questionable statements, relationships, and actions, as well as anomalies and gaps. When they find something dubious, they must look further into it, always with an eye for trouble. Is access to government secrets more important than access to the country? The immigration process should start with an inquiry into the prospective immigrant and, just as with security clearances, the border services should look for problems.

3572Most everyone with strong views at some point vents them on social media.

Also, as with security clearance, this process should have a political dimension: Does the person in question have an outlook consistent with that of the Constitution? Not long ago, only public figures such as intellectuals, activists, and religious figures put their views on the record; but now, thanks to the Internet and its open invitation to everyone to comment in writing or on video in a permanent, public manner, and especially to social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), most everyone with strong views at some point vents them. Such data provides valuably unfiltered views on many critical topics, such as Islam, non-Muslims, women, and violence as a tactic. (Exploiting this resource may seem self-evident but U.S. immigration authorities do not do so, thereby imposing a self-restraint roughly equivalent to the Belgian police choosing not to conduct raids between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.)

In the case of virulent, overt, outspoken jihadis, this research usually suffices to provide evidence to exclude them. Even some non-violent Islamists proudly announce their immoderation. But many Islamists adopt a milder and subtler tone, their goal being to appear moderate so they can enter the country and then impose Shari’a through lawful means. As suggested by some of the examples above, such as Abou El Fadl or CAIR, research often proves inadequate in these instances because cautious Islamists hide their goals and glibly dissimulate. Which brings us to entrance interviews.

Entrance Interviews

Assuming that lawful Islamists routinely hide their true views, an interview is needed before letting them enter the country. Of course, it is voluntary, for no one is forced to apply for immigration, but it also must be very thorough. It should be:

Recorded: With the explicit permission of the person being questioned (“You understand and accept that this interview is being recorded, right?”), the exchange should be visibly videotaped so the proceedings are unambiguously on the record. This makes available the interviewee’s words, tone, speech patterns, facial expressions, and body language for further study. Form as well as substance matters: does the interviewee smile, fidget, blink, make eye contact, repeat, sweat, tremble, tire, need frequent toilet breaks, or otherwise express himself in non-verbal ways?

Polygraph: Even if a lie detector machine does not, in fact, provide useful information, attaching the interviewee to it might induce greater truth-telling.

Under oath: Knowing that falsehoods will be punished, possibly with jail time, is a strong inducement to come clean.

Public: If the candidate knows that his answers to abstract questions (as opposed to personal ones about his life) will be made public, this reduces the chances of deception. For example, asked about belief for the full application of Islamic laws, an Islamist will be less likely to answer falsely in the negative if he knows that his reply will be available for others to watch.

3568Look for inconsistency by asking the same thing in different ways. An example: “May a woman show her face in public?” and “Is a male guardian responsible for making sure his women-folk don’t leave the house with faces uncovered?

Multiple: No single question can evince a reply that establishes an Islamist disposition; effective interviewing requires a battery of queries on many topics, from homosexuality to the caliphate. The answers need to be assessed in their totality.

Specific: Vague inquiries along the lines of “Is Islam a religion of peace?”, “Do you condemn terrorism?” “How do you respond to the murder of innocents,” depend too much on one’s definition of words such as peace, terrorism, and innocents to help determine a person’s outlook, and so should be avoided. Instead, questions must be focused and exact: “May Muslims convert out of Islam, whether to join another faith or to become atheists?” “Does a Muslim have the right to renounce Islam?”

Variety in phrasing: For the questions to ferret out the truth means looking for divergence and inconsistency by asking the same question with different words and variant emphases. A sampling: “May a woman show her face in public?” “What punishment do you favor for females who reveal their faces to men not related to them by family?” “Is it the responsibility of the male guardian to make sure his women-folk do not leave the house with faces uncovered?” “Should the government insist on women covering their faces?” “Is society better ordered when women cover their faces?” Any one of the questions can be asked in different ways and expanded with follows-up about the respondent’s line of reasoning or depth of feeling.

Repeated: Questions should be asked again and again over a period of weeks, months, and even longer. This is crucial: lies being much more difficult to remember than truths, the chances of a respondent changing his answers increases with both the volume of questions asked and the time lapse between questionings. Once inconsistencies occur, the questioner can zero in and explore their nature, extent, and import.

The Questions

Guidelines in place, what specific questions might extract useful information?

3574Zuhdi Jasser (L) with the author as teammates at a 2012 Intelligence Squared debate in New York City.

The following questions, offered as suggestions to build on, are those of this author but also derive from a number of analysts devoting years of thinking to the topic. Naser Khader, the-then Danish parliamentarian of Syrian Muslim origins, offered an early set of questions in 2002. A year later, this author published a list covering seven subject areas.

Others followed, including the liberal Egyptian Muslim Tarek Heggy, the liberal American Muslims Tashbih Sayyed and Zuhdi Jasser, the ex-Muslim who goes by “Sam Solomon,” a RAND Corporation group, and the analyst Robert Spencer. Of special interest are the queries posed by the German state of Baden-Württemberg dated September 2005 because it is an official document (intended for citizenship, not immigration, but with similar purposes).

Islamic doctrine:

1. May Muslims reinterpret the Koran in light of changes in modern times?

2. May Muslims convert out of Islam, either to join another faith or to be without religion?

3. May banks charge reasonable interest (say 3 percent over inflation) on money?

4. Is taqiya (dissimulation in the name of Islam) legitimate?

Islamic pluralism:

5. May Muslims pick and choose which Islamic regulations to abide by (e.g., drink alcohol but avoid pork)?

6. Is takfir (declaring a Muslim to be an infidel) acceptable?

7. [Asked of Sunnis only:] Are Sufis, Ibadis, and Shi’ites Muslims?

8. Are Muslims who disagree with your practice of Islam infidels (kuffar)?

The state and Islam:

9. What do you think of disestablishing religion, that is, separating mosque and state?

10. When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for female drivers’ license pictures), which gets priority?

11. Should the state compel prayer?

12. Should the state ban food consumption during Ramadan and penalize transgressors?

13. Should the state punish Muslims who eat pork, drink alcohol, and gamble?

14. Should the state punish adultery?

15. How about homosexuality?

16. Do you favor a mutawwa’ (religious police) as exist in Saudi Arabia?

17. Should the state enforce the criminal punishments of the Shari’a?

18. Should the state be lenient when someone is killed for the sake of family honor?

19. Should governments forbid Muslims from leaving Islam?

Marriage and divorce:

20. Does a husband have the right to hit his wife if she is disobedient?

21. Is it a good idea for men to shut their wives and daughters at home?

22. Do parents have the right to determine whom their children marry?

23. How would you react if a daughter married a non-Muslim man?

24. Is polygyny acceptable?

25. Should a husband have to get a first wife’s approval to marry a second wife? A third? A fourth?

26. Should a wife have equal rights with her husband to initiate a divorce?

27. In the case of divorce, does a wife have rights to child custody?

Female rights:

28. Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)?

29. Does a woman have the right to dress as she pleases, including showing her hair, arms and legs, so long as her genitalia and breasts are covered?

30. May Muslim women come and go or travel as they please?

31. Do Muslim women have a right to work outside the home or must the wali approve of this??

32. May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men?

33. Should males and females be separated in schools, at work, and socially?

34. Should certain professions be reserved for men or women only? If so, which ones?

35. Do you accept women occupying high governmental offices?

36. In an emergency, would you let yourself be treated by or operated on by a doctor of the opposite gender?

Sexual activity:

37. Does a husband have the right to force his wife to have sex?

38. Is female circumcision part of the Islamic religion?

39. Is stoning a justified punishment for adultery?

40. Do members of a family have the right to kill a woman if they believe she has dishonored them?

41. How would you respond to a child of yours who declares him- or herself a homosexual?

Schools:

42. Should your child learn the history of non-Muslims?

43. Should students be taught that Shari’a is a personal code or that governmental law must be based on it?

44. May your daughter take part in the sports activities, especially swimming lessons, offered by her school?

45. Would you permit your child to take part in school trips, including overnight ones?

46. What would you do if a daughter insisted on going to university?

Criticism of Muslims:

3575Denying the Islamic nature of ISIS reveals much about a Muslim.

47. Did Islam spread only through peaceful means?

48. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam, even if it casts doubt on the received history?

49. Do you accept that Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

50. Is the Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh Islamic in nature?

Fighting Islamism:

51. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight Islamism, even if this might mean extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)?

52. When institutions credibly accused of funding jihad are shut down, is this a symptom of anti-Muslim bias?

53. Should Muslims living in the West cooperate with law enforcement?

54. Should they join the military?

55. Is the “war on terror” a war on Islam?

Non-Muslims (in general):

3573Praying at the Hindu Temple in Dubai, founded 1958.

56. Do all humans, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious beliefs, deserve equal rights?

57. Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims?

58. Do you accept the validity of other monotheistic religions?

59. Of polytheistic religions (such as Hinduism)?

60. Are Muslims superior to non-Muslims?

61. Should non-Muslims be subject to Islamic law?

62. Do Muslims have anything to learn from non-Muslims?

63. Can non-Muslims go to paradise?

64. Do you welcome non-Muslims to your house and go to their residences?

Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Islam):

65. May Muslims compel “Peoples of the Book” (i.e., Jews and Christians) to pay extra taxes?

66. May other monotheists build and operate institutions of their faith in Muslim-majority countries?

67. How about polytheists?

68. Should the Saudi government maintain the historic ban on non-Muslims in Mecca and Medina?

69. Should it allow churches to be built for Christian expatriates?

70. Should it stop requiring that all its subjects be Muslim?

Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Harb):

71. Should Muslims fight Jews and Christians until these “feel themselves subdued” (Koran 9:29).

72. Is the enslavement of non-Muslims acceptable?

73. Is it acceptable to arrest individuals who curse the prophet of Islam or burn the Koran?

74. If the state does not act against such deeds, may individual Muslims act?

75. Can one live a fully Muslim life in a country with a mostly non-Muslim government?

76. Should a Muslim accept a legitimate majority non-Muslim government and its laws or work to make Islam supreme?

77. Can a majority non-Muslim government unreservedly win your allegiance?

78. Should Muslims who burn churches or vandalize synagogues be punished?

79. Do you support jihad to spread Islam?

Violence:

80. Do you endorse corporal punishments (mutilation, dismemberment, crucifixion) of criminals?

81. Is beheading an acceptable form of punishment?

82. Is jihad, meaning warfare to expand Muslim rule, acceptable in today’s world?

83. What does it mean when Muslims yell “Allahu Akbar” as they attack?

84. Do you condemn violent organizations such as Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Shabaab, and the Taliban?

Western countries:

85. Are non-Islamic institutions immoral and decadent or can they be moral and virtuous?

86. Do you agree with studies that show non-Muslim countries such as New Zealand to be better living up to the ideals of Islam than Muslim-majority countries?

87. Is Western-style freedom an accomplishment or a form of moral corruption? Why?

88. Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries?

89. Do you accept living in Western countries that are secular or do you seek to have Islamic law rule them?

90. What do you think of Shari’a-police patrolling Muslim-majority neighborhoods in Western countries to enforce Islamic morals?

91. Would you like to see the U.S. Constitution (or its equivalents in other countries) replaced by the Koran?

This interview:

92. In an immigration interview like this, if deceiving the questioner helps Islam, would lying be justified?

93. Why should I trust that you have answered these questions truthfully?

Observations about the Interviews

Beyond helping to decide whom to allow into the country, these questions can also help in other contexts as well, for example in police interrogations or interviews for sensitive employment positions. (The list of Islamists who have penetrated Western security services is a long and painful one.)

3569Islamists are hardly the only ones who condemn Israel. Here Jewish Voice for Peace activists protest.

Note the absence of questions about highly charged current issues. That is because Islamist views overlap with non-Islamist outlooks; plenty of non-Islamists agree with Islamists on these topics. Although Leil Leibowitz in contrast sees Israel as “moderate Islam’s real litmus test,” Islamists are hardly the only ones who demand Israel’s elimination and accept Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate political actors – or believe the Bush administration carried out the 9/11 attacks or hate the United States. Why introduce these ambiguous issues when so many Islam-specific questions (e.g., “Is the enslavement of non-Muslim acceptable?”) have the virtue of far greater clarity?

The interviewing protocol outlined above is extensive, asking many specific questions over a substantial period using different formulations, probing for truth and inconsistencies. It is not quick, easy, or cheap, but requires case officers knowledgeable about the persons being interviewed, the societies they come from, and the Islamic religion; they are somewhat like a police questioner who knows both the accused person and the crime. This is not a casual process. There are no shortcuts.

Criticisms

This procedure raises two criticisms: it is less reliable than Trump’s no-Muslim policy and it is too burdensome for governments to undertake. Both are readily disposed of.

Less reliable: The no-Muslim policy sounds simple to implement but figuring out who is Muslim is a problem in itself (are Ahmadis Muslims?). Further, with such a policy in place, what will stop Muslims from pretending to renounce their religion or to convert to another religion, notably Christianity? These actions would require the same in-depth research and intensive interviews as described above. If anything, because a convert can hide behind his ignorance of his alleged new religion, distinguishing a real convert to Christianity from a fake one is even more difficult than differentiating an Islamist from a moderate Muslim.

Too burdensome: True, the procedure is expensive, slow, and requires skilled practitioners. But this also has the benefit of slowing a process that many, myself included, consider out of control, with too many immigrants entering the country too quickly. Immigrants numbered 5 percent of the population in 1965, 14 percent in 2015, and are projected to make up 18 percent in 2065. This is far too large a number to assimilate into the values of the United States, especially when so many come from outside the West; the above mechanism offers a way to slow it down.

As for those who argue that this sort of inquiry and screening for visa purposes is unlawful; prior legislation for naturalization, for example, required that an applicant be “attached to the principles of the Constitution” and it was repeatedly found to be legal.

Finally, today’s moderate Muslim could become tomorrow’s raging Islamist; or his infant daughter might two decades later become a jihadi. While any immigrant can turn hostile, such changes happen far more often among born Muslims. There is no way to guarantee this from happening but extensive research and interrogations reduce the odds.

Conclusion

Truly to protect the country from Islamists requires a major commitment of talent, resources, and time. But, properly handled, these questions offer a mechanism to separate enemy from friend among Muslims. They also have the benefit of slowing down immigration. Even before Trump became president, if one is to believe CAIR, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) asked questions along the lines of those advocated here (What do you think of the USA? What are your views about jihad? See the appendix for a full listing). With Trump’s endorsement, let us hope this effective “no-Islamists” policy is on its way to becoming systematic.

Appendix

On January 18, 2017, just hours before Donald Trump became president of the United States, the Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed ten complaints with the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) for questioning Muslim citizens about their religious and political views. Among the questions allegedly asked were:

1. Are you a devout Muslim?

2. Are you Sunni or Shia?

3. What school of thought do you follow?

4. Which Muslim scholars do you follow?

5. What current Muslim scholars do you listen to?

6. Do you pray five times a day?

7. Why do you have a prayer mat in your luggage?

8. Why do you have a Qur’an in your luggage?

9. Have you visited Saudi Arabia?

10. Will you every visit Saudi or Israel?

11. What do you know about the Tableeghi-Jamat?

12. What do you think of the USA?

13. What are your views about Jihad?

14. What mosque do you attend?

15. Do any individuals in your mosque have any extreme/radical views?

16. Does your Imam express extremist views?

17. What are the views of other imams or other community members that give the Friday sermon at your mosque?

18. Do they have extremist views?

19. Have you ever delivered the Friday Prayer? What did you discuss with your community?

20. What are your views regarding [various terrorist organizations]?

21. What social media accounts do you use?

22. What is your Facebook account username?

23. What is your Twitter account username?

24. What is your Instagram account username?

25. What are the names and telephone numbers of parents, relatives, friends?

CAIR also claims a Canadian Muslim was asked by CBP the following questions and then denied entry:

1. Are you Sunni or Shia?

2. Do you think we should allow someone like you to enter our country?

3. How often do you pray?

4. Why did you shave your beard?

5. Which school of thought do you follow?

6. What do you think of America’s foreign policy towards the Muslim world?

7. What do you think of killing non-Muslims?

8. What do you think of [various terrorist groups]?

Finally, CAIR indicates that those questioned “were held between 2 to 8 hours by CBP.”

Categories: "Extreme vetting", Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamic tolerance, Islamisation, Islamist "democracy", Islamist freedom, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamist threats, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

My Islam Problem and Yours

January 29, 2017

My Islam Problem and Yours, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, January 28, 2017

liberty

[A]t least one interested party — the current president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has declared bluntly that his religion is in dire need of a reformation. Chances are he knows more about Islam than you. He certainly does than me.  Also, he lives in a hellacious region of the world dominated by that religion and its violent ideology.

How dangerous is that ideology?  Ask yourself this:  Why is it that since 9/11/2001 there he have been 30,209 terror attacks in the name of Allah?  There have been 38 in the last six days alone, resulting in 425 killed and 419 injured. There were also nine suicide bombings during that time frame.

******************************

You can be a virtue-signaling moral narcissist and get all exercised about Donald Trump’s executive order suspending visas from seven primarily Muslim countries for the next ninety days, but I have a question for you: what do we do about Islam?

You will note I say Islam and not some other euphemistic expression like radical Islam or Islamism or Islamofascism. Islam.

I know that disturbs you because chances are you live in a world where cultural relativism prevails and all religions — fusty old things that they are — are equal.

Well, it is so if you think so, but I will note again that at least one interested party — the current president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has declared bluntly that his religion is in dire need of a reformation. Chances are he knows more about Islam than you. He certainly does than me.  Also, he lives in a hellacious region of the world dominated by that religion and its violent ideology.

How dangerous is that ideology?  Ask yourself this:  Why is it that since 9/11/2001 there he have been 30,209 terror attacks in the name of Allah?  There have been 38 in the last six days alone, resulting in 425 killed and 419 injured. There were also nine suicide bombings during that time frame.

So I repeat, why is that?  DNA? That would be racist. Poverty? But most of the terror masters are rich. How about an ideology that urges you to do these things, just as it always has since the seventh century? Could that be the reason — just possibly?

If so, do you have some idea of what to do about that ideology or do you prefer to blame Donald Trump because he is trying to do something about it, at least trying to makes sure his own citizens are protected?

I know.  Sorry I asked.  Blame Donald Trump.  He was the one who blew all those people in San Bernardino to smithereens and then walked into that Orlando gay bar and wiped out everyone there as if they were digital images in some real-life video game.

Better to protest at JFK or wherever they are perpetuating this horrifyingly racist and unAmerican order the orangeman has perpetrated on the innocent of the Third World.  Give me your tired, your poor, Nancy Pelosi intones from the exclusive terroir of her Napa Valley vineyard. It’s a desecration of the Holocaust, says Jerrold Nadler, unknowingly desecrating the Holocaust himself by making such an absurd comparison.

No, ladies and gentleman, pretend though it’s otherwise, we do have an Islam problem, all of us.  Europe as we knew it growing up is practically gone and our society has been badly infected. When a massive march of American women is led by a Muslim woman who insists she wants to “take the vagina away” of one of the great freedom fighters of our time, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who herself has suffered from genital mutilation, we know things have come to a drastic pass.

But go on, blame Donald Trump.  It’s all his fault.  Islam doesn’t need a reformation.  It’s just the same as all other religions… as long as you don’t study it.  Or get in its path.

Categories: Islamic immigration, Islamic reformation, Islamic refugees, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, President Trump, Trump agenda, Trump and Islamic refugees, Trump and Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

CAIR: Cruz’s Muslim Brotherhood Bill Not About Terrorism

January 26, 2017

CAIR: Cruz’s Muslim Brotherhood Bill Not About Terrorism, Investigative Project on Terrorism, John Rossomando, January 26, 2017

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s bill seeking to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group is discriminatory leaders of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) claimed at a press conference Wednesday.

“We believe it has little to do with national security or terrorism,” CAIR’s spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.

He sees Cruz’s bill as part of a two-step strategy to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and attack groups and their leaders who “Islamophobes have falsely labeled as linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Hard evidence, however, links CAIR and other American Islamist groups to the Brotherhood.

A phone book introduced at 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Hamas fundraising trial revealed that CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad and fellow CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee. This committee came into existence as part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to support Hamas in America.

U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis noted in a 2009 ruling that the HLF trial evidence provided “at least a prima facie case as to CAIR’s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas.”

Awad defended the Muslim Brotherhood at the press conference, saying it has been “part in parcel of the democratic process” that it believes in democracy. Banning it for ideological reasons “is nothing short of shooting ourselves in the foot as the biggest democracy or the strongest democracy in the world,” Awad said.

Cruz’s bill would direct the secretary of state to tell Congress whether the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization. President Trump reportedly is considering an executive order accomplishing the bill’s objectives.

CAIR also protested Trump’s proposed executive order curtailing immigration and visas from majority Muslim countries such as Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Iran. With the exception of Iran, all of these countries have barely functioning central governments and are in the midst of raging civil wars. It also contested President Trump’s order halting the processing of Syrian refugees and ordering the creation of safe zones inside Syria for them.

Awad cast the orders as anti-Muslim and bigoted.

“Never before in our country’s history have we purposely as a matter of policy imposed a ban on immigrants or refugees on the basis of religion or imposed a litmus test on those coming to this nation,” Awad said. “The orders will tarnish our image in the Muslim world, making us seem uncaring and hard-hearted.”

It’s not exactly without precedent. Early 20th century immigration laws barred those belonging to ideological subversives and polygamists from coming to the U.S. Ottoman authorities protested the latter for curtailing Muslim immigration to the United States.

Categories: CAIR, Islamic terrorism, Muslim Brotherhood, President Trump, Ted Cruz, US Congress
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Congratulations, President Trump! Now what? Reversing the ostrich complex

January 21, 2017

Congratulations, President Trump! Now what? Reversing the ostrich complex, Jihad Watch, , January 21, 2017

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

trump-oval-office

We, as military officers, have failed to treat linguistics – the war of words – with the level of importance to which it deserves. As summarized in Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech:

“The war against Islamism is as much a war of ideas as it is a physical battle, and therefore the dissemination of information in the free world is paramount. The manipulation of Western court systems, the use of Western “hate speech laws” and other products of political correctness to destroy the very principles that democracies stand for, must be countered.

Unfortunately Islamist lawfare is beginning to limit and control public discussion of Islam, particularly as it pertains to comprehending the threat posed by Islamic terrorist entities. As such, the Islamist lawfare challenge presents a direct and real threat not only to our constitutional rights, but also to our national security.”[184]

Can you imagine a scenario where, during World War II, if Nazis complained to us about our analyzing Mein Kampf or the Enigma machine, we would have stopped?[117] Or where we would have appointed Nazi party members or open supporters and advocates to senior leadership positions within the Executive Branch departments or as special assistants to the President?[118][119] [120] It would have been insane to fight a war that way.

And yet that is exactly what we are doing now with this policy and this administration. Islamic doctrine, as codified in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and sharia law, is the Enigma machine with which we can decode the actions and intentions of the threat. But Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from even purchasing the Qur’an.[121]

****************************

“ISIL [The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] is not ‘Islamic.’” – President Barack Obama[1]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels[2]

Why does our government recoil “at the notion that we might actually want to scrutinize an ideology that fuels anti-American militarism”?[3] The purge of “Islam,” “jihad,” “sharia,” and other related words from our National Security documents, counter-terrorism training, and intelligence analysis is eerily reminiscent of the warning George Orwell described in his seminal work – 1984.[4] “The purpose of Newspeak was…to make all other modes of thought impossible…by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meaning”[5] This policy is the “Ostrich Complex,” a synonym for Jihad Denial Syndrome (JDS).[6] [7]

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have effectively ascribed to a “see no evil” policy when it comes to Islam.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] The problem is that “words convey reality,” and it is our duty as military officers to be connected to reality.[20] Our oath requires us to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”.[21] Yet this administration has tasked us to focus on the euphemistic “violent extremists”, which aside from being woefully ambiguous, ignores those who may not meet the narrow definition of violent extremists – yet still meet the broader threshold of being enemies.[*][22]

In 2004, The 9/11 Commission Report identified the enemy as “twofold: al Qaeda, a stateless network of terrorists that struck us on 9/11; and a radical ideological movement in the Islamic world, inspired in part by al Qaeda, which has spawned terrorist groups and violence across the globe.”[23] It went on to note that “ Islamists consider Islam to be as much a religion as an ‘ideology.’”[24] In spite of this, President Obama “and his subordinates, in consultation with advisors from Islamist organizations [like the Muslim Brotherhood], have purged training materials used to instruct national security agents of information deemed to be unflattering of Islam.”[25]

In December 2014 , the Commanding General of a key organization leading the fight against the Islamic State – Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT) – admitted, “We do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it. We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”[26] Major General Nagata was speaking of the Islamic State, the rebranded name for al Qaeda in Iraq – an offshoot of what is now called “core al Qaeda.”[27] Regardless, almost a decade and a half after the slaughter of almost 3,000 Americans, this is inexcusable.

Although there are multiple, competing interpretations of Islam, it is beyond the scope of this white paper to attempt to broker the differences, but rather to ensure we are able to address the aggressive, supremacist ideology that constitutes a continuing national security threat based on our enemies own statements claiming legal and theological accuracy and justification for their actions.[28]

“Does concern for multicultural or religious sensibilities justify relinquishing free speech in public discourse and scholarly endeavors?”[29] This report argues in the negative…and that, in fact, such an order to subordinate national security interests and intelligence analysis to anything less than a full and factual analysis constitutes dereliction of duty on behalf of the practitioner and an illegal order on behalf of the party responsible for issuing the order, policy or regulation.[30] [31]

The Problem

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana[32]

“Today there are two great threats facing the survival of the modern liberal West. The first is its exaggerated confidence in the power of reason;the second is its profound underestimation of the forces of fanaticism.” – Lee Harris, The Suicide of Reason[33]

We have faced a totalitarian, supremacist ideology bent on world domination before.[34] Adolf Hitler told us what his goal was in Mein Kampf when it was published in 1926.[35] [36] The problem was, almost no one believed him. And people could not imagine the depths of evil of which the Nazi regime was capable. In fact, the word “genocide” was not invented until 1944.[37] Hitler said to the German people, “‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flung itself at his feet.”[38] Effectively, so too did Muhammad – by his words and actions.[39][40]

Some will find the comparison of Nazi ideology to Islamic ideology offensive. This warrants further exploration. Dr. Bill Warner, Center for Study of Political Islam, has analyzed the anti-Semitism in Mein Kampf (7%), the Meccan Koran (1%), the Medinan Koran (16.9%), Sahih al-Bukhari (8.9%) and the Sira (12%).[41] Overall, the trilogy of Islamic texts averages 9.3% anti-Semitic content – clearly more anti-Semitic than Mein Kampf – especially when total word count is considered. [42] With respect to violence, only 5.6% of the Hebrew Bible is dedicated to violence.[43] By comparison, 9% of the Koran, 21% of the Hadith of Bukhari, and 67% of the Sira are dedicated to violent jihad. [44] The complete Islamic trilogy is 31% dedicated to political violence. [45]

And it’s not just a matter of an academic analysis of the doctrine. Words and declarations precede actions. We effectively ignored al Qaeda’s fatwa that constituted a declaration of war – despite the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and the deadly attack on the USS Cole – until 9/11.[46]

According to Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, “The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It is beyond the scope of this paper to explain the concept of progressive revelation with respect to the Qur’an, but suffice it to say that Qur’an 4:89 “Slay them wherever you find them” remains a commandment from Allah that is fully in effect and applies to all Muslims for all times (as does Qur’an 9:29, and 9:5’s “Sword Verse” for that matter).[47]

“Militant Islam may actually pose an existential threat to the United States. At a minimum, it constitutes a formidable strategic threat.”[48] Despite the onslaught of Islamic inspired terrorism, the Ostrich Complex manifested itself visibly just last week, when the Obama Administration released its final National Security Strategy.[49] The only mention of Islam is to “reject the lie that we are at war with Islam.” [50] There was no mention of the doctrine of jihad or sharia law. Yet a study of Islamic doctrine and the proclamations of the jihadists attacking us, makes it clear that Islam is the justification for those attacks.[51] In the jihadists’ minds, it is clear that they are at war with us.

The problem is: how can you defeat an enemy you cannot name? How can you know and understand an enemy you are prohibited from analyzing? This prohibition subverts the intelligence analysis process and leaves us strategically blind to the enemy.[52]

In 2009, during one of his first major foreign policy speeches overseas, President Obama declared “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”[53] A review of the U.S. Constitution reveals no such duty.[54] But the President had set the tone and effectively the policy for his administration with respect to Islam when he said those words in 2009. And so doing, we see that “the abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word.”[55]

As Josef Pieper warned, “the general public is being reduced to a state where people not only are unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions, satisfied with a fictitious reality created by design through the abuse of language.”[56] So too is our National Security apparatus is being subverted by this policy.

The problem is partially rooted in a misunderstanding of our own Constitution, which affords religious protections under the First Amendment.[†] This is understandable because “Many people confuse politics and religion.”[57] However, Islam is not just a religion – it is a complete civilizational alternative that includes a legal, political, economic, social and military doctrine known as shariah law.[58] As comprehensively explained in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum, [59] the strategy for subverting the US Constitution to comport with shariah law is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” which calls for “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”[60] This makes it clear that although the Muslim Brotherhood varies in ways and means from al Qaeda and the Islamic State, their ends – the end state – remain the same.

Although religion is only a portion of Islam, shariah makes it is impossible to separate Mosque and State in Islam.[61] “The religion of Islam is what a Muslim does to go to paradise and avoid hell. Political Islam determines the treatment of unbelievers and the governance of Muslims.”[62] It is the political focus on non-believers that raises the national security interests. Were the religious and the political not inseparable in Islam, we would remain unconcerned with what we would deem to be the strictly religious aspects of Islam. The scope of the problem is exacerbated by the fact that 61% of the Qur’an, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith is dedicated to the political. [63] This is why David Yerushalmi argued that “the active and purposeful pursuit of Shariah in the U.S. has implications for the federal criminal law of sedition (notably Title 18, Section 2385 of the U.S. Code),” where Jewish law, Christian dogmas and Catholic canon do not.”[64]

Background

Perhaps the most high profile case of Islamic suppression of free speech (before the attack on Charlie Hebdo)[65] was the fatwa[‡] that constituted a death sentence against Salman Rushdie as a result of his publishing The Satanic Verses.[66] [67] 25 years after the original fatwa was issued calling for his death, it was renewed.[68]

But the Islamic war on free speech dates back to the time of Muhammad himself when in 624 he first started ordering the assassination of poets who mocked him (Al-Nadr bin al-Harith,[69] Uqba bin Abu Muayt,[70] Asma bint Marwan,[71] Abu Afak,[72] Kab bin al-Ashraf,[73] [74] Ibn Sunayna,[75] a one-eyed Bedouin,[76] and one of Abdullah bin Katal’s two singing-girls. [77] [78])[79] For those unfamiliar with Islamic jurisprudence, it warrants pointing out that the first source is the Qur’an, the second is the example of Muhammad – who the Qur’an cites is the model for Muslims to emulate. Hence the significance of these events.

In addition to physical threats of violence, Islam also employs jihad of the pen. As an example, much of the academic aversion to discuss Islam honestly can be attributed to the aggressive tone of Edward Said’s Orientalism that amounts to intellectual terrorism as a result of “spraying charges of racism, imperialism and Eurocentrism from a moral high ground.”[80] [81] If only Ibn Warraq’s seminal Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism were as well read in academic circles.[82]

On October 19th, 2011, in order to advance their efforts to silence critical examination of Islam in relation to the threat, a number of Muslim groups sent an open letter to John Brennan, who was then serving as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor.[83] In it, they accused “the federal government’s use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam” and demanded a purge of the offensive training materials from the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and the DoD.[84]

That same month, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Homeland Defense Strategy and Force Planning Jose Mayorga formally requested that the Director of the Joint Staff task the “Combatant Commands, Services, National Guard Bureau and Component Commands” to determine the criteria for instructors on “countering violent Islamic extremism.”[85] After that tasking did not have a sufficiently chilling effect on “offensive” counterterrorism training, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey himself signed a letter further reiterating his concern about “ideas, beliefs, and actions that are…disrespectful of the Islamic religion.” And that the review should ensure that programs exhibit “cultural sensitivity, respect for religion and intellectual balance…”[86] [87]

In so doing, Chairman Dempsey violated his own duty to the American Public when he silenced those who would honestly analyze the threat.[88] His actions placed the ideology of multiculturalism over his responsibilities as an officer in the US Military who has sworn an oath of office,[89] despite his duties as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[90] It appears as if his primary concern was not with American values and security, but rather with not offending the Muslim world. [91]

It is a shame General Dempsey has failed to heed the advice of his predecessor, General Pete Pace, who warned:

“I say you need to get out and read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler. Remember he wrote Mein Kampf. He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life. No equivocation on their part.”[92] [93]

Or for that matter, General George Washington, who prognosticated, “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[94]

Bad Actors

Two of the organizations leading the efforts to subvert our ability to even discuss Islam in the context of National Security are the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The United Arab Emirates (UAE) named both the Muslim Brotherhood and the CAIR as designated terrorist organizations.[95] [96] Additionally, CAIR has been extensively linked with Hamas – a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).[97] [98] [99]

The Muslim Brotherhood has been extensively documented as a terrorist organization,[100] [101] and was banned in Egypt in 1948, and is now once again outlawed in Egypt.[102] Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood has been designated as a terrorist organization by Egypt,[103] [104] Russia, [105] [106] Syria,[107] Saudi Arabia[108] and the United Arab Emirates.[109] [110][111] The 9/11 Commission Report recognized the Muslim Brotherhood as a principle ideological inspiration for al Qaeda.[112]

The actions of these two organizations (Muslim Brotherhood & their front group – CAIR) in particular, I will argue – as Andrew McCarthy did in his conviction against Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheik”) – constitutes seditious conspiracy,[§] that is “a confederation to wage war against the United States.”[113] [114]

A Judicial Watch Special Report titled “U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed ‘Offensive’ to Muslims” extensively documents the history of the purge within the Department of Justice.[115] Which begs the questions as to why the Pentagon is listening to Hamas-linked and designated terrorist organizations?[116]

Can you imagine a scenario where, during World War II, if Nazis complained to us about our analyzing Mein Kampf or the Enigma machine, we would have stopped?[117] Or where we would have appointed Nazi party members or open supporters and advocates to senior leadership positions within the Executive Branch departments or as special assistants to the President?[118][119] [120] It would have been insane to fight a war that way.

And yet that is exactly what we are doing now with this policy and this administration. Islamic doctrine, as codified in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and sharia law, is the Enigma machine with which we can decode the actions and intentions of the threat. But Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from even purchasing the Qur’an.[121]

The reality that Islam currently has over a billion adherents creates a tremendous apprehension about the possibility that these adherents follow an ideology that is rooted in an aggressive, totalitarian, supremacist doctrine bent on world domination. Even if President Obama is correct when he states that “99.9% of Muslims” reject that interpretation of Islam, that still leaves over a million jihadists committed to global Islamic reign.[122] And polls show that number is actually much higher than what the President is portraying.[123] It is that fear [of the possibility that there are over a million people that ascribe to a violent ideology] that allows the lie – of Islam as a religion of peace – to live. As David Horowitz said, “A lie grounded in human desire is too powerful for reason to kill.”[124]

In fact, the size of Islam’s followership is one of the arguments used by Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers simultaneously as both evidence of Islam’s validity and an implied threat.[125] But behind that argument is a logical fallacy – the bandwagon –that holds that an ideology has credence because many people ascribe to it.[126] And more importantly, the size of Islam’s adherents exponentially increases the severity of the danger from the ideology spreading.

As Thomas Paine said, “I prefer peace. But, if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”[127] The problem is, “It is simply delusional to think there is no correlation between what a person believes and how they are likely to act – as delusional as it is to think there is no correlation between Islam’s doctrinal summons to violence and Islamic terrorism.”[128]

Recommendations

“In political warfare, the weapons are words.” – David Horowitz[129]

Ideally, the U.S. Government would reverse the policy to ban the examination of the same Islamic doctrine that our declared enemy says they follow. Recognizing that this administration will not reverse this policy leaves national security professional with a tremendous ethical dilemma. If we are obsessed with political correctness, policies, and promotions, we are negligent in our highest duty: to support and defend American lives.[130]

As Gary Hull discussed in Mohammad: The Banned Images:

“In the battle between open discourse and terrorist intimidation, the immediate philosophic issue is: how does one settle competing claims? Such claims cannot be avoided and are inherent in living in a social setting. … Fundamentally, there are only two methods by which to settle such claims: by reference to persuasion, debate, arguments – i.e. by appealing to reason – or by knives, guns, and bombs – i.e., by reference to the threat or actual initiation of physical force.”[131]

Right now, our options are limited to challenging the status quo or violating our professional oaths, not to mention professional canons. We should continue to conduct personal professional development through extensive reading of both primary Islamic source material, e.g. the Qur’an,[132] Sahih al-Bukhari (specifically Volume 4, Book 56[133] and Volume 9, Appendix III[134]), the Sira,[135] the Reliance of the Traveller,[136] War and Peace in the Law of Islam,[137] The Quranic Concept of War[138] and Freedom of Expression in Islam[139]; secondary source material that predate political correctness, like Moslems: Their Beliefs, Practices, and Politics[140] or shun political correctness, like The Suicide of Reason[141]; books by counter jihadists like Raymond Ibrahim,[142] Robert Spencer,[143] [144] Stephen Coughlin,[145] [146] Frank Gaffney,[147] the Team B2,[148] Walid Phares,[149] and Brigitte Gabriel,[150]; as well as books written by apostates like Ibn Warraq,[151] [152] [153] [154], Ayaan Hirsi Ali,[155] [156] [157] Nonie Darwish,[158] [159][160] and Wafa Sultan.[161]

Others outside the Executive Branch, specifically the Legislative Branch and the press, can continue to press the Administration for information about the actions they are taking and to expose the ill-advised and ill-guided policies being forced on the Executive Branch. In this respect, articles exposing Administration, supported by information gained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits can assist in righting this ship.

Once Chairman Dempsey leaves this summer, we can work towards educating the new Chairman about the nature of the threat – both foreign and domestic – and push to have him rescind or supersede Chairman Dempsey’s purge letter. [162] [163] We can encourage the new Chairman to update professional reading lists to include primary Islamic source materials as well as the politically incorrect books that nonetheless accurately identify, assess, and diagnose the threat. Additionally, we should review and update our policies and training in accordance with the recommendations of the US Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee in accordance with their special report A Ticking Time Bomb[164] regarding the Fort Hood attack, rather than the politically correct report produced for the Federal Bureau of Investigation[165] and the Department of Defense’s report, which only mentions Islam once, and that reference was buried in a footnote.[166] Despite Secretary Gates’ guidance, this has not been done.[167]

Regardless of the results of the Presidential election in 2016, we must push the new administration to designate both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. During the Holy Land Foundation trial, Judge Solis directly associated CAIR with a designated terrorist organization.[168] As previously mentioned, this has already been done by Egypt,[169] [170] Russia, [171] [172] Syria,[173] Saudi Arabia[174] and the United Arab Emirates[175] [176] [177] – and we should follow their leads in this case. This may be no easy task depending on who wins the White House, given that CAIR has already started attempting to manipulate the 2016 Republican Presidential candidates publically.[178] [179]

One of the ways to eliminate political correctness from intelligence analysis would be to hold National Security professionals and Intelligence Analysis products to a legal standard. As Andrew McCarthy explains in his book, Willful Blindness:

“Trials have been a priceless elucidation of alarming truths. A trial is a crucible like no other. Political correctness and sloganeering melt away. … [Jurors] have to be told a story that comports with reality, or they won’t convict the person whose fate lies in their hands. A trial is not an exercise in rhetoric or spin. You don’t get to make blithe pronouncements – that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, that jihadists are a bare fringe distorting the true faith, or that terrorists acted because of poverty, alienation or, needless to say, Israel. You actually have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to depict the world as it is, not as we wish it were.”[180]

Finally, we can determine if my political heresy has been the result of some blend of xenophobia and conspiracy theories, or if it is the result of an honest intellectual development that can be replicated and shared throughout the National Security apparatus, and if so, how.[181]

Conclusion

“War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.” – Clausewitz[182]

“Politics is war conducted by other means.” – David Horowitz[183]

We, as military officers, have failed to treat linguistics – the war of words – with the level of importance to which it deserves. As summarized in Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech:

“The war against Islamism is as much a war of ideas as it is a physical battle, and therefore the dissemination of information in the free world is paramount. The manipulation of Western court systems, the use of Western “hate speech laws” and other products of political correctness to destroy the very principles that democracies stand for, must be countered.

Unfortunately Islamist lawfare is beginning to limit and control public discussion of Islam, particularly as it pertains to comprehending the threat posed by Islamic terrorist entities. As such, the Islamist lawfare challenge presents a direct and real threat not only to our constitutional rights, but also to our national security.”[184]

Paraphrasing from Muhammad: the Banned Images:

“We need to re-examine our commitment to free expression. When an institution such as the Executive Branch needs to suppress scholarly work and legitimate intelligence analysis because of the theoretical possibility of violence or the offended feelings of a select group, it grants legitimacy to censorship and casts serious doubts on our commitment to freedom of expression, and more importantly – our commitment to winning this trans-generational war. The failure to defend our right to examine threat doctrine, as promulgated by the enemy, emboldens those who would attack us and undermines our national security. It is time for the Chairman, the President and the Congress to exercise moral and intellectual leadership.”[185]

“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” [186] Just as “Mein Kampf’s existence denied the free world the excuse of ignorance”,[187] so too does the Qur’an,[188] Sahih al-Bukhari,[189] [190] the Sira[191] and Islamic law[192] itself deny us the excuse of ignorance about the trans-national, trans-generational, totalitarian, supremacist, genocidal threat we face from Islam today.

If we do not study the threat, we won’t be able to accurately distinguish friend from foe and hence, ultimately lose the ability to defeat the enemy. The challenge is finding a way to understand the evil that motivates totalitarians like al Qaeda, the Islamic State, the Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk, while still being able to leverage those Muslim leaders, nations and populations who actively support the United States in this war against supremacist, totalitarian jihadism – from King Abdullah II of Jordan,[193] and President al-Sisi of Egypt,[194] to Malala.[195]

“Mundus vult decipi”[196]

Notes

[*] enemy. (13c) 1. One who opposes or inflicts injury on another; an antagonist. 2. A opposing military force. 3. A state with which another state is at war. — Also termed public enemy. 4. A person possessing the nationality of the state with which one is at war. — Also termed enemy subject. 5. A foreign state that is openly hostile to another whose position is being considered.

Source: Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.)

hostility. (15c) 1. A state of enmity between individuals or nations. 2. An act or series of acts displaying antagonism. 3. (usu. pl.) Acts of war. Source: Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms

enemy combatant — In general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict.  Also called EC.  Source: DoD Directive 2310.01E

[†] “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Source: U.S. Constitution.

[‡] “The author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, against the Prophet of Islam, and against the Koran, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to capital punishment. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to execute this sentence without delay, so that no one henceforth will dare insult the sacred beliefs of the Muslims.” – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Source: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~owend/I/islam/fatwa.html

[§] Seditious Conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

[1] Obama, Barack. “Statement by the President on ISIL.” The White House. September 10, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/statement-president-isil-1.

[2] Goebbels, Joseph. “Joseph Goebbels: On the “Big Lie”” Joseph Goebbels On the “Big Lie” Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie.html.

[3] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 105.

[4] Orwell, George. Animal Farm and 1984. New York: Harcourt, 2003. 373-385.

[5] Orwell, George. Animal Farm and 1984. New York: Harcourt, 2003. 373.

[6] Rodgers, Guy. “Jihad Denial Syndrome.” TheHill. June 24, 2010. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/105243-jihad-denial-syndrome.

[7] Limbaugh, David. “Obama’s Jihad-denial Syndrome.” WND. September 17, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obamas-jihad-denial-syndrome/.

[8] Spencer, Robert. “Is the Pentagon Waking Up?” Jihad Watch. December 14, 2005. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/is-the-pentagon-waking-up.

[9] Fitton, Thomas. “U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed “Offensive” to Muslims.” Judicial Watch. December 5, 2013. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JWSRGovtPurgeAndActiveMeasures5Dec2013.pdf.

[10] “Words That Work and Words That Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. March 14, 2008. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/127.pdf.

[11] Gertz, Bill. “Inside the Ring.” Washington Times. January 4, 2008. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/4/inside-the-ring-8-34302/.

[12] “Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole Speaks at the Department’s Conference on Post 9/11 Discrimination.” The US Department of Justice. October 11, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-james-m-cole-speaks-department-s-conference-post-911.

[13] “Obama Administration Pulls References to Islam from Terror Training Materials, Official Says.” Yahoo! News. October 21, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-pulls-references-islam-terror-training-materials-044605689.html.

[14] Lopez, Claire. “Muslim Brotherhood Takes Charge of FBI Counterterrorism Training” ClarionProject.org. April 25, 2012. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/muslim-brotherhood-takes-charge-fbi-counterterrorism-training.

[15] Dempsey, Martin E. “Martin Dempsey’s Letter Calling for Review of Military Education and Training Curriculum.” The New York Times. April 24, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/25/us/Review-of-Military-Education-Training-Curriculum.html.

[16] Poole, Patrick. “A Detailed Look at ‘the Purge’ of U.S. Counter-terrorism Training by the Obama Administration.” The Blaze. March 26, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/03/26/a-detailed-look-at-the-purge-of-u-s-counter-terrorism-training-by-the-obama-administration/.

[17] Rusin, David. “Problems in the U.S. Military: Denying Islam’s Role in Terror.” Middle East Forum. Spring 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.meforum.org/3485/us-military-islam.

[18] Cavanugh, Tim. “DHS CRCL CVE Training – Dos and Donts.” Scribd. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.scribd.com/doc/141998997/DHS-CRCL-CVE-Training-Dos-and-Donts.

[19] “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims.” Department of Homeland Security. January 1, 2008. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/126.pdf.

[20] Pieper, Josef. Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1992. 15.

[21] “Oath of Commissioned Officers.” Oath of Commissioned Officers. August 1, 1959. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.army.mil/values/officers.html.

[22] Obama, Barack. “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism In The United States.” White House. December 1, 2011. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/sip-final.pdf.

[23] Kean, Thomas H. The 9/11 Commission Report. Washington, DC: [National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States], 2004. 363.

[24] Kean, Thomas H. The 9/11 Commission Report. Washington, DC: [National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States], 2004. 562.

[25] McCarthy, Andrew C. “The Articles of Impeachment.” In Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, 152, 223-224. New York: Encounter Books, 2014.

[26] Schmitt, Eric. “In Battle to Defang ISIS, U.S. Targets Its Psychology.” The New York Times. December 28, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/us/politics/in-battle-to-defang-isis-us-targets-its-psychology-.html.

[27] Schmitt, Eric. “In Battle to Defang ISIS, U.S. Targets Its Psychology.” The New York Times. December 28, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/us/politics/in-battle-to-defang-isis-us-targets-its-psychology-.html.

[28] McCarthy, Andrew C. “The Articles of Impeachment.” In Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, 152, 223-224. New York: Encounter Books, 2014. 221.

[29] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 13.

[30] United States Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 (The Uniform Code of Military Justice).

[31] (Coughlin, Stephen. Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy, 2015.)

[32] “George Santayana.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.iep.utm.edu/santayan/.

[33] Harris, Lee. The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the Enlightenment. New York: Basic Books, 2007. xxi.

[34] Orwell, George. “Review of Mein Kampf.” Carnegie Council. March 1, 1940. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://worldview.carnegiecouncil.org/archive/worldview/1975/07/2555.html/_res/id=sa_File1/v18_i007-008_a010.pdf.

[35] Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. xv.

[36] Orwell, George. “Review of Mein Kampf.” Carnegie Council. March 1, 1940. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://worldview.carnegiecouncil.org/archive/worldview/1975/07/2555.html/_res/id=sa_File1/v18_i007-008_a010.pdf.

[37] Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. xv.

[38] Orwell, George. “Review of Mein Kampf.” Carnegie Council. March 1, 1940. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://worldview.carnegiecouncil.org/archive/worldview/1975/07/2555.html/_res/id=sa_File1/v18_i007-008_a010.pdf.

[39] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari (9 Vol. Set).” Islam Future. November 25, 2012. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/sahih-al-bukhari-9-vol-set/.

[40] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Verse 2797.” Future Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-4-ahadith-2738-3648.pdf. 52.

“I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and the come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”

[41] Warner, Bill. ”  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy.” Center for the Study of Political Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Amt_anti-Jew_Text.html.

[42] Warner, Bill. ”  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy.” Center for the Study of Political Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Amt_anti-Jew_Text.html.

[43] Warner, Bill. Factual Persuasion: Changing the Mind of Islam’s Supporters. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2011. 30-31.

[44] Warner, Bill. Factual Persuasion: Changing the Mind of Islam’s Supporters. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2011. 30-31.

[45] Warner, Bill. Factual Persuasion: Changing the Mind of Islam’s Supporters. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2011. 30-31.

[46] “The 9/11 Commission Report.” The 9/11 Commission Report; January 1, 2004. Accessed October 9, 2014. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf.

[47] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. “Justice: The Objectives of Jihad.” In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik, 599-602. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[48] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 309.

[49] Obama, Barack. “National Security Strategy.” The White House. February 6, 2015. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf.

[50] Obama, Barack. “National Security Strategy.” The White House. February 6, 2015. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf.

[51] Ibrahim, Raymond. The Al Qaeda Reader. New York: Doubleday, 2007.

[52] (Coughlin, Stephen. Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy, 2015.)

[53] Obama, Barack. “Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09.” The White House. June 4, 2009. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09.

[54] “The Constitution of the United States.” The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. September 17, 1787. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.

[55] Pieper, Josef. Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1992. 32.

[56] Pieper, Josef. Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1992. 34-35.

[57] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 47.

[58] Lopez, Clare. Shariah: The Threat to America : An Exercise in Competitive Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2010. 2.

[59] Akram, Mohammed. “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. May 22, 1991. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/445.pdf.

[60] Akram, Mohammed. “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. May 22, 1991. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/445.pdf.

[61] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. “Apostacy from Islam.” In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik, 596-598. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[62] Warner, Bill. Islam 101. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2008. 13-14.

[63] Warner, Bill. Islam 101. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2008. 14.

[64] Yerushalmi, David. “Shariah vs. Jewish Law.” FrontPage Magazine. October 10, 2008. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32710.

[65] “Charlie Hebdo Attack: Three Days of Terror.” BBC News. January 14, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237.

[66] Rushdie, Salman. The Satanic Verses. New York, N.Y.: Viking Penguin, 1989.

[67] Rushdie, Salman. “The Satanic Verses.” Salman Rushdie. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.salman-rushdie.com/blog/the-satanic-verses/.

[68] Graaf, Mia. “Iranian Mullah Revives Death Fatwa against Salman Rushdie over Satanic Verses 25 Years after It Was Issued.” Mail Online. February 16, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560683/Iranian-mullah-revives-death-fatwa-against-Salman-Rushdie-Satanic-Verses-25-years-issued.html.

[69] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 136; 163, 236; 181, 262; 308, 458.

[70] Khan, Muhammad Muhsin. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4.” Darussalam. Accessed February 9, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-4-ahadith-2738-3648.pdf. No. 2934.

[71] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 675-76; 995-96.

[72] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 675, 995.

[73] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 364-369.

[74] Khan, Muhammad Muhsin. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5.” Darussalam. Accessed February 9, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-5-ahadith-3649-4473.pdf. No. 4037.

[75] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 369, 534.

[76] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 674-675.

[77] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. 550-51, 819.

[78] Khan, Muhammad Muhsin. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4.” Darussalam. Accessed February 9, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-4-ahadith-2738-3648.pdf.

No. 3044.

[79] Arlandson, James. “Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society: The Assassination of Satirical Poets in Early Islam.” Answering Islam. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm.

[80] Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.

[81] Warraq, Ibn. Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2007. 18.

[82] Warraq, Ibn. Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2007. 18.

[83] “CAIR Letter to the Honorable John Brennan.” Thomas More. October 19, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/files/Letter_to_John_Brennan_19_OCT_2011%20(3).pdf.

[84] “CAIR Letter to the Honorable John Brennan.” Thomas More. October 19, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/files/Letter_to_John_Brennan_19_OCT_2011%20(3).pdf.

[85] Mayorga, Jose S. “Screening Process for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Trainers and Speakers.” The Daily Caller. October 11, 2011. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Joint-Staff-Action-Trainers.pdf.

[86] Dempsey, Martin E. “Martin Dempsey’s Letter Calling for Review of Military Education and Training Curriculum.” The New York Times. April 24, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/25/us/Review-of-Military-Education-Training-Curriculum.html.

[87] Spencer, Robert. “Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Orders Military to Purge All Training Material of Truth about Islam.” Jihad Watch. May 3, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/exclusive-senior-us-general-orders.

[88] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 7.

[89] “Oath of Commissioned Officers.” Oath of Commissioned Officers. August 1, 1959. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.army.mil/values/officers.html.

[90] “10 U.S. Code § 163 – Role of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff.” 10 U.S. Code § 163. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/163.

[91] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 8.

[92] “Extemporaneous Remarks on Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” Lecture, keynote speech presented at National Defense University from General Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Fort McNair, December 1, 2005.

[93] Coughlin, Stephen. “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad (with Appendices).” Assyrian International News Agency. July 1, 2007. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.aina.org/reports/iwesaj.pdf.

[94] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 10.

[95] “UAE Cabinet Approves List of Designated Terrorist Organisations, Groups.” Emirates News Agency. November 15, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates-international/1395272478814.html.

[96] Mauro, Ryan. “UAE Doubles Down on Designation of CAIR as Terrorists | Clarion Project.” Clarion Project. November 26, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/uae-doubles-down-designation-cair-terrorists.

[97] “Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).” Discover the Networks. February 9, 2015. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6176.

[98] “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm.

[99] “5th Circuit Upholds Holy Land Foundation Convictions.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. December 7, 2011. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1851.pdf.

[100] “Muslim Brotherhood.” Discover the Networks. February 10, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6386.

[101] Abdallah, Essam. “Islamist Lobbies’ Washington War on Arab and Muslim Liberals.” The Investigative Project on Terrorism. February 16, 2012. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/3453/islamist-lobbies-washington-war-on-arab.

[102] Fahim, Kareem. “Egypt, Dealing a Blow to the Muslim Brotherhood, Deems It a Terrorist Group.” The New York Times. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/world/middleeast/egypt-calls-muslim-brotherhood-a-terrorist-group.html?_r=0.

[103] Nasralla, Shadia. “Egypt Designates Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist Group.” Reuters. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/25/us-egypt-explosion-brotherhood-idUSBRE9BO08H20131225.

[104] Abdelaziz, Salma, and Steve Almasy. “Egypt’s Interim Cabinet Officially Labels Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group – CNN.com.” CNN. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/25/world/africa/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-terrorism/.

[105] “Отключены или не поддерживаются активные сценарии (JavaScript).” Устаревший или неподдерживаемый веб-обозреватель. February 12, 2003. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=EXP;n=257852.

[106] “Russia Names ‘terrorist’ Groups.” BBC News. July 28, 2006. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5223458.stm.

[107] “Assad Says ‘factors Not in Place’ for Syria Peace Talks.” Hurriyet Daily News. October 21, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/assad-says-factors-not-in-place-for-syria-peace-talks.aspx?pageID=238&nID=56611&NewsCatID=352.

[108] Ajbaili, Mustapha. “Saudi: Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group.” Al Arabiya News. March 7, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/03/07/Saudi-Arabia-declares-Muslim-Brotherhood-terrorist-group.html.

[109] Shahine, Alaa, and Glen Carey. “U.A.E. Supports Saudi Arabia Against Qatar-Backed Brotherhood.” Bloomberg.com. March 9, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-09/u-a-e-supports-saudi-arabia-against-qatar-backed-brotherhood?cmpid=yhoo.

[110] “UAE Cabinet Approves List of Designated Terrorist Organisations, Groups.” Emirates News Agency. November 15, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates-international/1395272478814.html.

[111] Mauro, Ryan. “UAE Doubles Down on Designation of CAIR as Terrorists | Clarion Project.” Clarion Project. November 26, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/uae-doubles-down-designation-cair-terrorists.

[112] “The 9/11 Commission Report.” The 9/11 Commission Report. p.51; January 1, 2004. Accessed October 9, 2014. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf.

[113] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 272.

[114] Title 18, US Code, Section 2384.

[115] Fitton, Thomas. “U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed “Offensive” to Muslims.” Judicial Watch. December 5, 2013. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JWSRGovtPurgeAndActiveMeasures5Dec2013.pdf

[116] Spencer, Robert. “Why Is the Pentagon Listening to Hamas-Linked CAIR?” PJ Media. July 31, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-is-the-pentagon-listening-to-hamas-linked-cair/.

[117] Smith, Michael. “Breaking the Enigma Code Was the Easiest Part of the Nazi Puzzle.” The Telegraph. November 15, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11231608/Breaking-the-Enigma-code-was-the-easiest-part-of-the-Nazi-puzzle.html.

[118] Rossomondo, John. “Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration.” The Investigative Project on Terrorism. January 3, 2013. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates.

[119] “The Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration.” FrontPage Magazine. March 28, 2013. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates-obama-administration/.

[120] Henry, Devin. “Bachmann: Investigate the Reach of the Muslim Brotherhood.” MinnPost. July 10, 2012. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2012/07/bachmann-investigate-reach-muslim-brotherhood.

[121] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. “Justice: The Objectives of Jihad.” In Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik, 379. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[122] “Obama: This “Medieval Interpretation Of Islam” Is Rejected By “99.9%” Of Muslims, Not A “Religious War”” CNN. February 1, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/01/obama_this_medieval_interpretation_of_islam_is_rejected_by_999_of_muslims_not_a_religious_war.html.

[123] Secrest, Barry. “Conservative Refocus News.” Stunning Poll Shows Obama’s 99.9 % Figure for Peaceful Muslims Worldwide False. February 6, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2015/02/06/stunning-poll-shows-obama-s-99-9-figure-for-peaceful-muslims-worldwide-false.

[124] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 192.

[125] Enein, Youssef H. Militant Islamist Ideology Understanding the Global Threat. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2010. 203.

[126] “Your Logical Fallacy Is Bandwagon.” Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies. Accessed February 9, 2015. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon.

[127] Paine, Thomas. “The Crisis.” Ushistory.org. December 23, 1776. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/crisis/c-01.htm.

[128] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 178.

[129] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 39.

[130] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 13.

[131] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 9.

[132] Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Qurʼan. Elmhurst, N. Y.: Tahrike Tarsile Qurʼan, 2005.

[133] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4.” Future Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-4-ahadith-2738-3648.pdf.

[134] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9.” Future Islam. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sahih-al-bukhari-volume-9-ahadith-6861-7563.pdf.

[135] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[136] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[137] Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955.

[138] Malik, S. K. The Quranic Concept of War. Lahore: Wajidalis, 1979.

[139] Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. Freedom of Expression in Islam. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1997.

[140] Oussani, Gabriel, and Hilaire Belloc. Moslems: Their Beliefs, Practices, and Politics. Ridgefield, CT: Roger A. McCaffrey Pub., 1936.

[141] Harris, Lee. The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the Enlightenment. New York: Basic Books, 2007.

[142] Ibrahim, Raymond. The Al Qaeda Reader. New York: Doubleday, 2007.

[143] Spencer, Robert. The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2006.

[144] Spencer, Robert. Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2008.

[145] Coughlin, Stephen C. “‘To Our Great Detriment’: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.” Assyrian International News Agency. July 1, 2007. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.aina.org/reports/iwesaj.pdf.

[146] (Coughlin, Stephen. Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy, 2015.)

[147] Gaffney, Frank J. War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2006.

[148] Lopez, Clare. Shariah: The Threat to America: An Exercise in Competitive Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2010.

[149] Phares, Walid. Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

[150] Gabriel, Brigitte. They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008.

[151] Warraq, Ibn. Why I Am Not a Muslim. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1995.

[152] Warraq, Ibn. Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, Linguistics. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011.

[153] Warraq, Ibn. Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak out. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003.

[154] Warraq, Ibn. Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2007.

[155] Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. Infidel. New York: Free Press, 2007.

[156] Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. New York: Free Press, 2006.

[157] Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. Nomad: From Islam to America–a Personal Journey through the Clash of Civilizations. New York: Free Press, 2010.

[158] Darwish, Nonie. Cruel and Usual Punishment. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.

[159] Darwish, Nonie. The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2012.

[160] Darwish, Nonie. Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror. New York, N.Y.: Sentinel, 2006.

[161] Sultan, Wafa. A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks out against the Evils of Islam. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009.

[162] Dempsey, Martin E. “Martin Dempsey’s Letter Calling for Review of Military Education and Training Curriculum.” The New York Times. April 24, 2012. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/25/us/Review-of-Military-Education-Training-Curriculum.html.

[163] Mayorga, Jose S. “Screening Process for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Trainers and Speakers.” The Daily Caller. October 11, 2011. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Joint-Staff-Action-Trainers.pdf.

[164] “A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S. Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack.” Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. February 1, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf.

[165] Webster, William H. “William H Webster Commission Final Report on FBI Counter Intelligence and the Events at Fort Hood.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. July 19, 2012. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/final-report-of-the-william-h.-webster-commission.

[166] West, Jr., Togo, and Vern Clark. “Protecting the Force: Lessons Learned from Fort Hood.” Department of Defense. January 1, 2010. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/DOD-ProtectingTheForce-Web_Security_HR_13Jan10.pdf.

[167] Gates, Robert. “Final Recommendations of the Ft. Hood Follow On Review.” Investigative Project on Terrorism. August 18, 2010. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1363.pdf.

[168] “US v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Et Al.: The Investigative Project on Terrorism.” The Investigative Project on Terrorism. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/65.

[169] Nasralla, Shadia. “Egypt Designates Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist Group.” Reuters. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/25/us-egypt-explosion-brotherhood-idUSBRE9BO08H20131225.

[170] Abdelaziz, Salma, and Steve Almasy. “Egypt’s Interim Cabinet Officially Labels Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group – CNN.com.” CNN. December 25, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/25/world/africa/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-terrorism/.

[171] “Отключены или не поддерживаются активные сценарии (JavaScript).” Устаревший или неподдерживаемый веб-обозреватель. February 12, 2003. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=EXP;n=257852.

[172] “Russia Names ‘terrorist’ Groups.” BBC News. July 28, 2006. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5223458.stm.

[173] “Assad Says ‘factors Not in Place’ for Syria Peace Talks.” Hurriyet Daily News. October 21, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/assad-says-factors-not-in-place-for-syria-peace-talks.aspx?pageID=238&nID=56611&NewsCatID=352.

[174] Ajbaili, Mustapha. “Saudi: Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group.” Al Arabiya News. March 7, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/03/07/Saudi-Arabia-declares-Muslim-Brotherhood-terrorist-group.html.

[175] Shahine, Alaa, and Glen Carey. “U.A.E. Supports Saudi Arabia Against Qatar-Backed Brotherhood.” Bloomberg.com. March 9, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-09/u-a-e-supports-saudi-arabia-against-qatar-backed-brotherhood?cmpid=yhoo.

[176] “UAE Cabinet Approves List of Designated Terrorist Organisations, Groups.” Emirates News Agency. November 15, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates-international/1395272478814.html.

[177] Mauro, Ryan. “UAE Doubles Down on Designation of CAIR as Terrorists | Clarion Project.” Clarion Project. November 26, 2014. Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/uae-doubles-down-designation-cair-terrorists.

[178] “CAIR Open Letter to 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates.” Council on American-Islamic Relations. January 26, 2015. Accessed February 11, 2015. https://www.cair.com/images/pdf/Open-Letter-to-2016-Republican-Presidential-Candidates.pdf.

[179] “CAIR Letter Urges GOP Presidential Candidates to Engage Muslim Voters, Reject Islamophobia – CAIR.” Council on American-Islamic Relations. January 26, 2015. Accessed February 11, 2015. https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12823-cair-urges-gop-presidential-candidates-to-engage-muslim-voters.html.

[180] McCarthy, Andrew C. Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. 314-315.

[181] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 189.

[182] “Clausewitz: War as Politics by Other Means.” Online Library of Liberty. Accessed February 12, 2015. http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/clausewitz-war-as-politics-by-other-means.

[183] Horowitz, David. The Art of Political War: And Other Radical Pursuits. Dallas, Tex.: Spence, 2000. 53.

[184] Goldstein, Brooke, and Aaron Eitan Meyer. Lawfare: The War against Free Speech ; a First Amendment Guide for Reporting in an Age of Islamist Lawfare. Washington, D.C.: Center for Security Policy, 2011. 153.

[185] Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The “banned” Images. Mesa, Ariz.: Voltaire Press, 2009. 48.

[186] Goebbels, Joseph. “Joseph Goebbels: On the “Big Lie”” Joseph Goebbels On the “Big Lie” Accessed February 9, 2015. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie.html.

[187] Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999. xxi.

[188] Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Qurʼan. Elmhurst, N. Y.: Tahrike Tarsile Qurʼan, 2005.

[189] Al-Bukhari, Imam. “Sahih Al-Bukhari (9 Vol. Set).” Islam Future. November 25, 2012. Accessed February 10, 2015. https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/sahih-al-bukhari-9-vol-set/.

[190] “Translation of Sahih Muslim.” Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/.

[191] Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[192] Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Ahmad, and Noah Ha Mim Keller. Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻUmdat Al-salik. Rev. ed. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A.: Amana Publications, 1999.

[193] Laub, Karen, and Mohammed Daraghmeh. “King Abdullah II Thrusts Jordan to the Center of War on Islamic State Militant Group.” US News. February 6, 2015. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/02/06/jordans-king-thrusts-country-to-center-of-islamic-state-war.

[194] Ibrahim, Raymond. “Egypt’s Sisi: Islamic “Thinking” Is “Antagonizing the Entire World”” Raymond Ibrahim. January 1, 2015. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/egypts-sisi-islamic-thinking-is-antagonizing-the-entire-world/.

[195] “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2014.” The Nobel Peace Prize 2014. October 10, 2014. Accessed February 11, 2015. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2014/press.html.

[196] Pieper, Josef. Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1992. 25-26.

Categories: Fantasy Islam, Islamic State, Islamic terror groups, Islamic terrorism, Islamic texts, Obama and Islamic State, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama and Islamists, Trump and Islamic terrorism, Trump and Islamists
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hamas, ISIS Affiliates, See Opportunity in Terror Truck Attack

January 11, 2017

Hamas, ISIS Affiliates, See Opportunity in Terror Truck Attack, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Yaakov Lappin, January 11, 2017

hamascelebratesImage from IDF Spokesperson

Hamas is engaged in unceasing efforts to set up and launch terror cells in the West Bank and east Jerusalem from where they try to evade Israeli intelligence, infiltrate and commit mass casualty attacks in Israeli cities. Hamas also is a main source of inciting lone Palestinian attackers.

Yet it is also in a state of conflict with Gaza-based ISIS entities, which sporadically fire rockets into Israel hoping to provoke retaliatory Israeli airstrikes on Hamas targets. In essence, ISIS-affiliated groups try to use the Israel Air Force to punish Hamas.

ISIS views Hamas as an infidel movement due to its willingness to blend jihadist doctrines with Palestinian nationalism. Nationalism has no place in ISIS’s vision of a pan-Islamic caliphate, free of so-called artificial national divides among Muslims.

******************************

Hamas launched a public relations campaign in recent days, aimed at capitalizing on a deadly truck attack in Jerusalem Sunday that killed four Israeli soldiers. The campaign sheds a light on Hamas’s plans to encourage and launch jihadist atrocities, but also on its vulnerability to the arrival of ISIS as an ideology and movement.

The truck attacker was Fadi Ahmad Hamdan Qanbar, a father of four from east Jerusalem. He acted alone when he plowed into a cluster of soldiers gathered, according to Israeli assessments, under the influence of jihadist propaganda disseminated by ISIS.

That fact has not stopped Hamas from making multiple efforts to claim the attack as its own, celebrating it, and pushing Palestinians to emulate it. The Gazan regime’s goal of setting the West Bank alight is well served by such incidents.

Yet Hamas’s efforts to cash in on the truck ramming also strengthen its domestic challengers in Gaza – ISIS-affiliated Salafi-jihadist groups which have been just as quick to claim Qanbar as one of their own, and probably with better cause.

These same groups wasted little time in using the opportunity to launch stinging attacks on the Hamas regime, whose security forces arrest their members and repress their activities.

For example, an ISIS-affiliated group in Gaza proudly noted that Israel attributed the attack to one who “belongs to the Islamic Caliphate State,” and stated: “Praise Allah, who provided the oppressed people of Bayt Al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] with trucks they can use to run over the settler herds – [and this] instead of the haram [forbidden] organizations [the main Palestinian organizations].”

A grim jihadist competition is underway, over who can use the Jerusalem attack to boost its political power. Immediately after Qanbar’s attack, Hamas claimed he was an operative of its military wing, the Izz Al-Din Qassam Brigades.

Fathi Hamad, a member of Hamas’ political bureau, told a rally in Gaza to celebrate the murders that same night: “the [Israeli] soldiers fled from the Izz al-Din Qassam Brigades operative who carried out the attack for the sake of the Palestinians, the Arab nation and the Muslims.”

Other Hamas officials issued similar statements, praising Qanbar, and calling for his actions to reinvigorate the ‘intifada for Jerusalem.’

As the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) noted, Hamas’s official Twitter account chimed in: “We welcome the bold and heroic truck operation in Jerusalem which was a natural reaction to the crimes of the Israeli occupation.”

To be sure, Hamas is engaged in unceasing efforts to set up and launch terror cells in the West Bank and east Jerusalem from where they try to evade Israeli intelligence, infiltrate and commit mass casualty attacks in Israeli cities. Hamas also is a main source of inciting lone Palestinian attackers.

Yet it is also in a state of conflict with Gaza-based ISIS entities, which sporadically fire rockets into Israel hoping to provoke retaliatory Israeli airstrikes on Hamas targets. In essence, ISIS-affiliated groups try to use the Israel Air Force to punish Hamas.

ISIS views Hamas as an infidel movement due to its willingness to blend jihadist doctrines with Palestinian nationalism. Nationalism has no place in ISIS’s vision of a pan-Islamic caliphate, free of so-called artificial national divides among Muslims.

Meanwhile, tensions increased as relations between Hamas and the ISIS affiliate Wilyat Al-Sinai (Sinai Province), which once saw a good degree of cooperation, soured. This relationship enabled Hamas to continue smuggling arms into Gaza via tunnels, and to make Gazan hospitals available to wounded ISIS fighters and commanders. Egypt has long suspected Gaza’s Islamist rulers of being a steady source of weapons and volunteers for ISIS.

Now, the ISIS-affiliated movement in and around Gaza is openly challenging Hamas’s legitimacy. Ironically, Hamas does the same thing to the ruling Fatah movement in the West Bank, which it seeks to topple by provoking a large-scale Israeli military counter-terrorism operation, according to assessments by Israeli security sources.

This deadly jihadist “game of thrones” looks set to continue and could act as a destabilizing factor and a catalyst for further attacks.

The Israeli defense establishment sees the truck ramming as the work of a lone attacker – the hardest type to detect and thwart preemptively.

While the Shin Bet domestic intelligence agency is making progress using big data analytics to scan social media accounts and pick out potential lone terrorists, much work remains to be done in this challenging field.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to this during remarks he made on the scene of the Jerusalem ramming, “I think the most important thing to understand is that we are under a new type of attack, by a lone terrorist, who becomes inspired and decides to spontaneously act.”

To counter ramming attacks, Israel has installed concrete barricades around bus stops in Jerusalem and the West Bank, he added. Additionally, Israeli security forces spent the past year intensively developing a “preventative intelligence infrastructure,” Netanyahu said, in reference to data analytics.

As the race continues to improve these techniques, Israel will need to continue to rely on the rapid responses of armed security forces and civilians who typically arrive at the scene of such incidents within seconds and open fire on terrorists.

Whether it is organized large-scale cells or lone murderers, the threat of indiscriminate jihadist violence looks set to remain with Israelis for years to come – though as the past two years have shown, Western cities are also increasingly prone to such threats.

Categories: Gaza, Hamas, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Israeli security, Jerusalem
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Czech government pushing constitutional change to let citizens use guns against Islamic jihadis

January 8, 2017

Czech government pushing constitutional change to let citizens use guns against Islamic jihadis, Jihad Watch, , January 8, 2017

The Washington Post, as one would expect from a key outpost of the establishment propaganda media, is appalled: “Never mind that there are fewer than 4,000 Muslims in this country of 10 million people — gun purchases spiked. One shop owner in East Bohemia, a region in the northern center of the Czech Republic, told a local paper that people were scared of a ‘wave of Islamists.’”

Only 4,000 Muslims! Such a small number couldn’t possibly mount a jihad terror attack, now, could they?

This is a common sense measure against a rising threat. The threat is rising because of Europe’s suicidal immigration policies. If Europeans don’t start defending themselves soon, it’s only going to get worse.

milos-zeman

“Czech government tells its citizens how to fight terrorists: Shoot them yourselves,” by Amanda Erickson, Washington Post, January 6, 2017:

A couple of months ago, Czech President Milos Zeman made an unusual request: He urged citizens to arm themselves against a possible “super-Holocaust” carried out by Muslim terrorists.

Never mind that there are fewer than 4,000 Muslims in this country of 10 million people — gun purchases spiked. One shop owner in East Bohemia, a region in the northern center of the Czech Republic, told a local paper that people were scared of a “wave of Islamists.”

Now the country’s interior ministry is pushing a constitutional change that would let citizens use guns against terrorists. Proponents say this could save lives if an attack occurs and police are delayed or unable to make their way to the scene. To become law, Parliament must approve the proposal; they’ll vote in the coming months.

The Czech Republic already has some of the most lenient gun policies in Europe. It’s home to about 800,000 registered firearms and 300,000 people with gun licenses. Obtaining a weapon is relatively easy: Residents must be 21, pass a gun knowledge check and have no criminal record. By law, Czechs can use their weapons to protect their property or when in danger, although they need to prove they faced a real threat.

This puts the country at odds with much of Europe, which has long supported much more stringent gun-control measures. In the wake of the 2015 terror attacks in Paris, France pushed the European Union to enact even tougher policies. The European Commission’s initial proposal called for a complete ban on the sale of weapons like Kalashnikovs or AR-15s that are intended primarily for military use. Ammunition magazines would be limited to 20 rounds or less.

The Czech Republic came out hard against the directive. Officials warned — somewhat ominously — that the measure would limit the country’s ability to build “an internal security system” and make it nearly impossible to train army reservists. And a total ban on military-style rifles that can fire large numbers of rounds would make illegal thousands of weapons already owned by Czech citizens, potentially creating a black market for terrorists to exploit. Finland and Germany offered their own reservations; Europe’s pro-gun groups also mobilized against the bill with the support of politicians on the extreme right….

Categories: Czech Republic, Europe, Gun control, Islamic terrorism, Milos Zeman
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

European Immigration: Mainly Muslim, Mainly Male, Mainly Young

January 5, 2017

European Immigration: Mainly Muslim, Mainly Male, Mainly Young, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, January 5, 2017

In the wake of the attack in Nice, there should have been a fulsome public discussion over what if anything can be done to ensure that people who have been in France for many years — in some cases their entire lives — are not indoctrinated to hate the country so much that they drive a truck through a crowded sea-front on Bastille Day.

Or there could have been a wide public debate over whether, with so many radicalised Muslims already in France, it was a wise or foolish idea to continue to import large numbers of Muslims into this already simmering situation.

Merkel seems to hope that with this raising of a burka ban the German public will forgive or forget the fact that here is a political leader so devoid of foresight that she unilaterally chose to allow an extra 1-2% of the population to be added to her country in a single year, mainly Muslim, mainly male and mainly young.

The burka and burkini, like the headscarf, are only issues because millions of people have been allowed, unchecked, into Europe for years. The garment is merely the simplest issue at which to take aim. Far harder are the issues of immigration and integration. It is possible that Europe’s politicians cannot answer these questions, because any and all answers would point the finger at their own failings.

The European publics might get fed up with the distraction tactics of talking about garments and instead seek answers to the challenge we now face, as well as retribution at the polls for the politicians who brought us here.

2016 was a fine year for Islamist terrorism and an even finer year for Western political distraction. While Islamic terrorists repeatedly succeeded in carrying out mass-casualty terrorist attacks, as well as a constant run of smaller-scale strikes, the political leadership of the free world continued to try to divert their public.

The most striking example of the year came in the summer with the French debate over whether or not to ban the “burkini” from the beaches of France. The row erupted in the days after another 86 people were murdered in a jihadist terrorist assault — this time in Nice, France. With no one sure how to prevent access to vehicles or any idea how many French Muslims might want to follow suit, the French media and authorities chose to debate an item of beachwear. The carefully staged decision by an Australian Muslim woman to have herself filmed while wearing a burkini on a French beach ignited the row, which was eagerly seized upon by politicians.

At the local and national level, the decision to discuss the burkini allowed all the larger political issues behind Europe’s growing security problem to be ignored. In the wake of Nice, there should have been a fulsome public discussion over what if anything can be done to ensure that people who have been in France for many years — in some cases their entire lives — are not indoctrinated to hate the country so much that they drive a truck through a crowded sea-front on Bastille Day. Or there could have been a wide public debate over whether, with so many radicalised Muslims already in France, it was a wise or foolish idea to continue to import large numbers of Muslims into this already simmering situation.

As it was, neither of these debates did occur, and no meaningful political action was taken. Instead, the issue of the burkini sucked all the oxygen out of the debate, leaving no room to discuss anything more serious or longer term than beachwear.

1696-1In the wake of the July 14 attack in Nice, France, in which 86 people were murdered, there should have been a fulsome public discussion over what if anything can be done to ensure that people who have been in France for many years — in some cases their entire lives — are not indoctrinated to hate the country so much that they drive a truck through a crowded sea-front on Bastille Day. (Image source: France24 video screenshot)

Across the continent in 2016, it appeared that other politicians realised the enormous advantage of such distraction debates. For instance, in the Netherlands in November, the country’s MPs voted for a ban on wearing a burka in public places. Prime Minister Mark Rutte apparently found this an enormously convenient debate. Not only did it temporarily reduce some of the pressure that his government is feeling at the rise of Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party to the top of opinion polls, but it also distracted attention from the years of mass immigration and lax integration demands which have been a hallmark of the Dutch experience.

After importing hundreds of thousands of people whose beliefs the Dutch authorities rarely bothered to question, the public would be satisfied — the Rutte government hoped — if only the small number of Dutch Muslim women who wear the burka were prevented from doing so. The Netherlands will have to see whether its implementation of such a law works any better than it does in neighbouring France, where “white knights” routinely show up to pay the fines of women fined for violating the burka ban there.

The Rutte government was not the only one to adopt this cynical strategy. Its most cynical deployment of all came in December, with the announcement by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that she would ban the burka in Germany.

As with the Dutch government, Merkel clearly hoped that in throwing this tidbit to the German public she might head off the threat that the Alternative for Germany party (AfD), among others, now poses to her party in this year’s election. But the move also raises the question of just how stupid does Angela Merkel believe the German people to be? It would seem that Merkel hopes that with this burka ban the German public will forgive or forget that here is a political leader so devoid of foresight that she unilaterally chose to allow an extra 1-2% of the population to be added to her country in a single year, mainly Muslim, mainly male and mainly young.

This is a Chancellor who, even having previously admitted that Germany’s multicultural model had “failed,” revved immigration up to unprecedented and unsustainable levels. Now, like her counterparts across the continent, she must hope that the German public are satisfied by this burka morsel and that, as a result, they will return Merkel and her party to power so that they can repeat whichever of their mistakes they choose in the years ahead.

It is possible, of course, that the European publics are wiser than their leaders and that they will see through these cynical and distracting tactics. There are extremely good reasons to ban any garment which covers a person’s face and allows them to wander as an anonymous stranger in our societies. There are some — though fewer — reasons to ban wearing a burkini on a beach. Certainly the governments of France, the Netherlands and Germany are within their rights to instigate and enforce any and all such bans. Such moves, however, are but the smallest register imaginable of a problem that seems far beyond this generation of politicians.

The burka and burkini, like the headscarf, are only issues because millions of people have been allowed, unchecked, into Europe for years. The garment is merely the simplest issue at which to take aim. Far harder are the issues of immigration and integration. It is possible that Europe’s politicians cannot answer these questions because any and all answers would point the finger at their own failings. Or it is possible that they have no answers to the problems with which they have presented the continent. Whichever it is, they would do well to reflect that in 2017, the European publics might get fed up with the distraction tactics of talking about clothing and instead seek answers to the challenge we now face, as well as retribution at the polls for the politicians who brought us here.

Categories: Burka ban distraction, Europe and Islam, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic sensitivities, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist grievances, Islamophobia, Merkel
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons and Videos of the Day

December 27, 2016

Via Capitol Steps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0DpwaTcsbc&t=5s

 

Via Capitol Steps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M6YvDXQcgQ

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

friendly-back-pats

 

rock-him

 

civworld

 

Via The Jewish Press

obama-un-kotel-occupiers-1

Categories: Humor, Islamic terrorism, Israel, Obama and Israel, UN and Israel, UN Security Council
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Bye Bye, Obama

December 26, 2016

Bye Bye, Obama, PJ Media, Michael Ledeen, December 25, 2016

(Please see also, Is real change coming to Iran? Get ready for March 15, 2017. — DM)

maddog

What would President Trump do if Khamenei passed from the scene, and millions of Iranians took to the streets again?  The president-elect has said he’s not a great enthusiast of regime change, but it’s hard to imagine he’d abandon the Iranians as Obama did seven years ago.  He ought to be thinking it through.

Yes, I know good news is hard to swallow, but we are living in a revolutionary moment, of which the Trump election is a dramatic symptom.  The crisis of the Islamic Republic would be a fitting end to the Obama era. He dreamt of a glorious strategic alliance with Iran, and a definitive lethal blow against Israel. How fitting with the Divine sense of humor to have the Palestinians and Iranians to wreck their own enterprises.

***********************

As I promised, as the days of Obama draw down, the jihadis are stepping up the terror tempo.  They know that there will be no reprisals from the Oahu links, and they fear Trump’s lineup of tough guys in the cabinet, so they’re in a hurry to kill infidels while the killing’s good. Therefore we, along with the other Western nations, are at maximum risk right now, until roundabouts January 20th.

And the killing’s plenty good, isn’t it?  Berlin,  Zurich, Ankara, Moscow, with a very nasty plot uncovered in Melbourne, and yet another involving terrorists in Detroit, Maryland, and Virginia.  Not to mention the ongoing slaughter in Syria, and, on Christmas day, Cameroon.

What does the “western world” do in response?  Declare the Western Wall “occupied territory.” This is no accident, since the jihadis believe that they have unleashed holy war against infidels.  That war will not end, in their view, until we infidels have been crushed and subjected to the will of a caliph.  They’ve got plenty of support from the Russians, without whom thousands of Iranians and Iranian proxies would have been killed in Syria and Iraq, and the Assad regime would have been destroyed.

That would have been a better world, but Obama did not want that world.  Nor did the feckless Europeans, who act as if profits on Iran trade compensate for the open subversion of public order.  Indeed, as Christmas arrived we were treated to the spectacle of the bishop of Rome—aka Pope Francis–blaming material misery for the jihadist assault on the West. Thus the first Jesuit pontiff surrenders the moral high ground to his mortal enemies.

Maybe Obama should convert and run for pope.

Paradoxically, the jihadis and their secular allies are launching their new assault just as they are suffering systematic setbacks on the battlefield, their own internal conflicts are intensifying, and there are signs of a religious and patriotic revival within the boundaries of their archenemy, the United States. Walter Russell Mead neatly catches the irony that, just as Obama handed the Palestinians a resounding political victory, a sober look at the situation suggests that the Palestinians have not been this weak, this divided, or this helpless in many decades.

In like manner, the Iranian regime, flush with its success in Aleppo, is increasingly riven.  Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has had two medical events in the past 10 days, and the scrambling for the succession has resumed.  You may have noticed that General Qasem Soleimani has returned to the front pages, which invariably happens when the leader is ill; the Revolutionary Guards want him as the strongman of the next regime (he can’t be supreme leader for lack of theological standing, but he could still be a dominant figure). And it isn’t all peaches and cream for Soleimani, as recent demonstrations in Tehran against the rape of Aleppo make clear. Iranian apologists love to tell us that Persian nationalism  overwhelms internal tribal and sectarian divisions, but Iran has lost thousands in Syria, and the Persian nationalists don’t like their husbands and sons dying to save Bashar Assad.

What would President Trump do if Khamenei passed from the scene, and millions of Iranians took to the streets again?  The president-elect has said he’s not a great enthusiast of regime change, but it’s hard to imagine he’d abandon the Iranians as Obama did seven years ago.  He ought to be thinking it through.

Yes, I know good news is hard to swallow, but we are living in a revolutionary moment, of which the Trump election is a dramatic symptom.  The crisis of the Islamic Republic would be a fitting end to the Obama era. He dreamt of a glorious strategic alliance with Iran, and a definitive lethal blow against Israel. How fitting with the Divine sense of humor to have the Palestinians and Iranians to wreck their own enterprises.

You never know. Life is full of surprises.

Categories: Islamic terrorism, Islamist terror attacks, Israel, Israeli settlements, Obama and Iran, Obama and Islam, Obama and Israel, Obama and Palestinians, Obama and The World, Palestinian state, Palestinians, President Elect Trump, President Reject Obama, Trump and Iran, Trump and Israel, Trump appointments, Two state solution, UN and Israel, UN Security Council
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »