John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber


Act for America emailed an excerpt of an article from The Federalist with the email subject line “The Muslim Brotherhood is Rattled”. The Federalist article by Ben Weingarten highlights that John Bolton’s appointment as National Security Advisor has rattled the transnational Islamic terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood (aka Ikhwan to many Arab speaking people) because Bolton has had the correct assessment that the terrorist network indeed should be on the State Department’s designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

 

Here is the Act for America email intro:

 

The left has made it their mission to smear anyone who opposes violent jihad, and cast them as “Islamophobic.” Recently, former ambassador John Bolton has been the target of such attacks because of his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) to the President. This is not only an attempt to discredit John Bolton, it is an attempt to protect the Muslim Brotherhood from finally being designated a terrorist organization.

 

As patriotic American’s we must stand up and not only support the appointment of Ambassador John Bolton, but also tell Congress it is time, once and for all, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Click here to tell your local Members of Congress enough is enough.

 

JRH 4/6/18

Please Support NCCR

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

John Bolton

 

John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality.

 

By Ben Weingarten

APRIL 5, 2018

The Federalist

 

The attacks on former ambassador John Bolton following his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) have inadvertently served as some of his strongest endorsements.

 

First there were the hysterical cries of “neocon warmonger!” This would come as news to the NSA-designate, who was never a “liberal mugged by reality” but a self-identified “Goldwater conservative” from the start; explicitly rejects the belief in democracy-building as imperative to achieving America’s national interest under democratic peace theory; and suggests, exaggerating for effect, that following the removal of Saddam Hussein, as soon as practicable he would have told the Iraqis, “You’re on your own. Here’s a copy of the Federalist papers. Good luck.”

 

Although the “neocon warmonger” moniker is inapt, to say the least, maybe it is not such a bad thing if our enemies buy this line. In fact, this may be part of President Trump’s strategic rationale as a dealmaker for elevating a “peace-through-strength” realist portrayed as a cantankerous cowboy to the top of the National Security Council.

 

Then followed another narrative: Bolton is not only a real-life Dr. Strangelove, but worse. He is actually an adroit bureaucrat—“crazy and dangerous.” Then-senator Joe Biden, a man prone to malapropism, actually put it best when, in Bolton’s retelling, Biden said of him in 2005: “My problem with you, over the years, has been, you’re too competent. I mean, I would rather you be stupid and not very effective.”

 

But the truly revelatory attacks concern Bolton’s positions on Islamic supremacism, which reflect an understanding that jihadists pose a mortal threat that must be countered using every element of national power. You know these attacks are meaningful partly because they have been made under cover of a smear campaign.

 

Opposing Jihadis Isn’t the Same as Opposing Islam

 

Bolton has been cast as an “Islamophobe” for the thought crime of being a counterjihadist who supports other counterjihadists. The charge of “Islamophobe” is a baseless, intellectually dishonest, and lazy slur. Although it does not deserve to be dignified with a response, it goes without saying that there is nothing to indicate Bolton harbors an irrational fear of Islam, and everything to indicate he holds the very rational belief that we must defeat Islamic supremacists who wish to subject us to their tyrannical rule or destroy us.

 

“Islamophobe” is being lobbed at Bolton to try and discredit him and ultimately scuttle policies he supports intended to strike at the heart of Islamic supremacism. The “tell” is that the articles raising such accusations frequently cast counterjihadist policy positions themselves as de facto evidence of Islamophobic bigotry.

 

As the representative par excellence of the position that America should exit the Iran deal, it should come as no surprise that the Iran deal echo chamber in exile has sprung into action in savaging the ambassador with the most outlandish of insinuations. For the Islamophobia campaign, the lesser-recognized and perhaps more insidious Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber has been activated. Bolton is on record as supporting its designation as a terrorist organization, and Brotherhood apologists and true believers cannot abide this.

 

Either We Work With Terrorists or We Don’t

 

Recall that the national security and foreign policy establishment has long held that as a “political Islamist” group, the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be treated as a legitimate diplomatic partner. The theory is that we have to choose between violent and seemingly peaceful Islamic supremacists, ignoring the fact that their differences are tactical and strategic, not ideological. They are all still Islamic supremacists.

 

Most infamously, the Obama administration supported the ascension of Mohamed Morsi, leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, to president during the Arab spring, with predictably horrific consequences in particular for the nation’s Christians that persist even in the era of the much-maligned counterjihadist Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

 

Such disastrously naïve policy pushes ignore that the Muslim Brotherhood is the tip of the Sunni jihadist spear. It’s the ideological fountainhead from which violent jihadist groups from Hamas to al-Qaeda and ISIS spring. The “political” element of the Muslim Brotherhood is, if anything, more pernicious precisely because its adherents do not goose-step, guns in hand, in the public square.

 

No, the political arm engages in political and ideological warfare, tactfully seeking to impose its will through policy and subterfuge. “Social welfare” activities provide a convenient cover for the group’s ultimate aims. As the Brotherhood put it in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America:

 

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in 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.

 

On account of the Brotherhood’s nature and activities, it has been designated as a terrorist organization from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A bill first introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz in 2015, calling for the U.S. secretary of state to submit a report to Congress on designating the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization in America, lays out several other reasons the group merits this, including:

 

The [group’s] explicit calls for violent jihad, with the end goal of imposing Islamic law over all the world of the group’s founder and spiritual leader Hassan al-Banna, and the consistently violent Islamic supremacist content of the Brotherhood’s core membership texts

 

The terrorist efforts of numerous jihadist groups explicitly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the efforts of individual Muslim Brotherhood members designated as terrorists by the U.S. government themselves

 

The litany of terrorist financing cases involving the Muslim Brotherhood, including the…Holy Land Foundation case [the largest terror financing case in U.S. history] …

 

Do What We Like or Get Smeared as a Bigot

 

On the campaign trail and in its early days the Trump administration indicated an interest in designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. But within months it shelved these plans. What happened? The Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber deployed.

 

The Brotherhood undertook an extensive lobbying and information operation designed to dissuade the administration’s plans, reportedly backed by millions of dollars. The U.S. foreign policy establishment quickly proliferated articles and comments in prominent mainstream publications defending the Muslim Brotherhood against charges of being a jihadist group, adding that designated it as such would be impractical and impracticable. Notably, The New York Times went so far as to print an op-ed in the Brotherhood’s defense written by Clinton Foundation-linked Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad.

 

In the midst of this flurry of articles, it leaked to the media that the CIA and State Department both produced memos against Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designation.

 

Concurrently, counterjihadists throughout the Trump administration were subjected to a barrage of attacks. Many would ultimately be sidelined, though some like Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo survived. He, like Bolton, is being attacked as an Islamophobic bigot as well.

 

Bolton recognized at the time that these events were not random. During a July 2017 interview he noted:

 

There’s been an amazing campaign. It’s always amazing to me how these stories and op-eds and lines of chatter appear simultaneously, all very well-coordinated…The argument being the Muslim Brotherhood is a complicated organization, not every part of it is devoted to the support of terrorism. Some of them do humanitarian work and so on; a declaration that the entire Brotherhood is a foreign terrorist organization would actually buttress the cause of the jihadis; so, therefore, don’t do anything.

 

Bolton’s riposte?

 

Let’s take the notion inherent in that argument as having some validity, that there are pieces of the Muslim Brotherhood that don’t qualify under the statutory definition we have of a foreign terrorist organization…My response to that is, ‘Okay, we need some careful drafting based on the evidence we have now that excludes some affiliates, some components of the Muslim Brotherhood from the designation.’ I’m prepared to live with that, of course, until we get more complete information.

 

This position is what really draws the ire of the Brotherhood echo chamber. CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the previously mentioned largest terror financing case in U.S. history, published a press release condemning the appointment of “Islamophobe John Bolton” as NSA, citing corroborating articles from such non-biased sources as Think Progress, The Nation, Islamophobia.com, Vox, and Huffington Post.

 

As I have written previously, CAIR’s Muslim Brotherhood and jihadi ties are numerous and longstanding, involving not only its founders and present leaders to Hamas, but its harboring of apologists for Islamic terrorism, and alleged impeding of counterterrorism efforts.

 

Bolton’s endorsement of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization illustrates a keen understanding of the size, scope, and nature of the Islamic supremacist threat that the national security and foreign policy establishment lacks. It is a proxy for a worldview that if followed to its logical conclusion would turn our largely futile efforts to beat back jihadists over the last 17 years on their head. This view takes Islamic supremacists at their word in their desire to impose upon us the Sharia-based, totalitarian theopolitical ideology to which they adhere. Hence the pushback.

 

Applying this worldview would lead to decisions antithetical to the progressive Wilsonian internationalists and political Islamists on myriad issues in the Middle East, including:

 

  • Treatment of Israel versus the Arabs

 

  • The Iran deal

 

  • Iran policy more broadly, including appropriate measures against its proxies in Syria and Lebanon

 

  • Qatar’s bellicosity

 

  • Turkey’s behavior under Islamic supremacist Erdogan

 

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who self-evidently wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality. This specious and slanderous smear campaign reflects all the better on the appointment of Bolton as NSA.

 

Photo Gage Skidmore / Flickr

________________________

Ben Weingarten is a senior contributor at The Federalist and senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. He is the founder and CEO of ChangeUp Media, a media consulting and production company dedicated to advancing conservative principles. You can find his work at benweingarten.com, and follow him on Twitter @bhweingarten.

 

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Intro to Book Review of 3-Authors by Murphey


By John R. Houk

© March 29, 2018

Counterjihad writer Paul Sutliff sent a link of a book review of three Counterjihad books. The last review is of Sutliff’s book “Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam”. Paul posts on a blog with a similar name: Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad. Paul also has a podcast at Blog Talk Radio: Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff. (Podcasts are linked by date. The link here is from 3/28/18. To listen to other podcasts, you can figure that out by going to Global Patriot Radio.)

 

The link is to a website entitled, “COLLECTED WRITINGS OF DWIGHT D. MURPHEY”. I like to know a bit of the person or website I have been referred to. In that spirit of curiosity, here is a paragraph from the Information about Dwight D. Murphey page:

 

 

Murphey was born in Tucson, Arizona, on June 14, 1934. He lived in Miami, Florida, before the three years in Mexico, and then lived in Denver, Colorado, for the rest of his childhood. He took his pre-law in political science at the University of Colorado between 1951 and 1954, served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve for two years between 1954 and 1956, then was a special student under Ludwig von Mises in the Graduate School of Business at New York University during the 1956-7 school year before attending the University of Denver College of Law. After he graduated from law school in 1959, he practiced with a large firm in Denver for six years and then went to work for a small firm in Colorado Springs for two years to run for District Judge.  He lost the 1966 race for the judgeship in Colorado Springs and joined the faculty at Wichita State University in 1967, teaching business law.  He retired from the faculty after 36 years at the end of June, 2003.  By the turn of the century, he had written classical liberal (or, as he prefers, “neo-classical liberal”) philosophy and historical analysis for more than fifty years. That work predominates in what is reproduced here.

 

… There is MUCH MORE TO READ

 

The Murphey book review is extracted from a subscription only website: The Journal for Social, Political, and Economic Studies. Here is an excerpt from the Journal’s about page:

 

The quarterly Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, which has been published regularly since 1976, is a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted to scholarly papers which present in depth information on contemporary issues of primarily international interest. The emphasis is on factual information rather than purely theoretical or historical papers, although it welcomes an historical approach to contemporary situations where this serves to clarify the causal background to present day problems.

The Journal is published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies, P.O. Box 34143, Washington DC 20043, USA, and is financed primarily by paid subscriptions from university and other libraries. Each Volume corresponds to the Calendar Year, and contains upwards of 500 pages.

The General Editor, Professor Roger Pearson, and the Associate Editor, Professor Dwight D. Murphey, are assisted by READ THE REST

 

The point of all this pedigree information leading up to the book review of three books illuminating readers about Islam, is that the review is an academic and legitimate source as opposed to – me – a disseminator of opinion based on what I have personally read.

 

Here is the brief Sutliff email alerting me to the book review:

 

Thought you may find this interesting. The book review article was published in the Summer 2017 issue of The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, pp. 251-272: http://dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info/JSPES-DDM-BkRevArt-Jihadism.htm.

 

And below is the well thought out book review from Dwight D. Murphey.

 

JRH 3/29/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Jihadism and Muslim Immigration: Three Recent Books

 

Book Review Article by Dwight D. Murphey

Wichita State University, Retired

Summer 2017; pp. 251-272

The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies

DwightMurphey-CollectiveWritings.info

 

There is little in today’s world that is more contentious than the debate over the nature of Islam and the role of Muslim immigration into the United States and Europe.  Major figures take the position that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslim immigration is to be welcomed.  An opposing view points to much in Islamic teaching that is not peaceful, to the widespread jihadist presence that is bringing violence both to Islamic societies and those of the West, and to the inability effectually to know what is going on inside Muslim communities and to “vet” newcomers.  Still another perspective, thus far latent because it is presently outside what is “politically correct,” is that it is mostly irrelevant how peaceful Islam is, because in any event it is existentially unwise for the West to invite an influx of a major new population element whose religion and culture diverges so greatly from Western society’s.  Those who grapple with these issues find that the subject is vast in its extent and complexity.  The article here reviews three books.  The first is by an author we presume to be Muslim, and tells much about the jihadist hatreds that produce not just attacks upon the West but a great deal of internecine violence among the world’s many Muslim factions. The others are by American authors, each a Christian, pointing to the dangers and social costs of large-scale Muslim immigration.  These reviews are put forward not as a final word, but for the benefit of the information they contain and as an invitation to further study.

Key Words:  Islam, Muslim immigration, jihadism, sharia, Islamic rivalries, Islamic divisions, Islamic terminology, Muslim Brotherhood, “civilization jihad,” U.S. immigration system, political correctness

 

The West’s ideological divisions have in recent years taken on a new face.  There was a time when the nature of Islam and its role in the modern world was of interest almost exclusively to academic specialists, and when mass immigration of Muslims into the West was on no one’s radar.  By now, however, questions about Islam and Muslim immigration are critically important.  The questions and their answers tell as much about the fault lines, ideological and otherwise, within the West as they do about the Muslims themselves and their religion.

 

Speaking before Congress in late 2001 shortly after the 9/11 attacks attributed to Islamic terrorists, U.S. President George W. Bush laid down the premise that has actuated American policy until, at least, early 2017.  He distinguished between Islam and the “radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.”  The terrorists, he said, are “traitors to their own faith,” seeking “to hijack Islam itself.” He spoke of “our many Muslim friends” and “our many Arab friends,” and saw nothing inherent in their ways of life or belief systems that would make the terrorists representative of them.  Thirteen years later, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said much the same thing when speaking about the beheading of an American by the Islamic State.  “The face of Islam is not the butchers who killed Steven Sotloff.”  Those who did the beheading were “mass cowards whose actions are an ugly insult to the peaceful religion that they violate… The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion, based on the dignity of all human beings.”[1]

 

The defense of Islam and the Muslim population at large has been fundamental to the policies that have welcomed and facilitated the immigration of many hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the United States and Europe.  It is the conceptual complement to the other factors that have caused the influx.  The others include, but are hardly limited to: American interventions that have destabilized much of the Middle East, tearing up existing structures and exacerbating the social chaos that the many contending factions of Islamic society lend themselves to; the seemingly ever-present economic demand for cheap labor;[2] the Western ideology of “multiculturalism” that by seeking profound demographic change reflects the Left’s centuries-old alienation against the mainstream of American life, the population of which has been of European stock; and the generous desire to do good that dates back through American religious history, such as to the Social Gospel.

 

The welcoming perception and open-door policies based on it are strongly opposed by others who, although acknowledging that there “are millions of peaceful Muslims throughout the world,”[3] stress that much Islamic doctrine, going back to the Quran and found in the writings of  many Islamic scholars over the centuries, is far from peaceful. To them, the metastasized jihadist movements represent a major aspect of Islam, one that places the many thousands of Muslim immigrants under a cloud.  They see it as impracticable – as, in effect, a self-deceiving fiction – to “vet” the immigrants sufficiently to remove the danger of terrorist violence.   And they are conscious of the inability of non-Muslims to know what is taking place or being taught within the Islamic communities and their mosques.[4]  The three books reviewed here voice this opposition.

 

In these introductory comments, it is worth noting a third position, which must be taken seriously despite lying beneath the surface of today’s discussion.  Even in Donald Trump’s campaign for the American presidency, he did not suggest the need for a long-term ban on mass immigration of Muslims into the United States (and Europe).  The most he felt it possible to propose was a short-term ban “until we can figure out what is going on.”  After becoming president, he caught intense criticism for, and even judicial opposition to, a temporary ban on immigrants from seven (later six) countries that the Obama administration had designated as sources of terrorism.  The end result was that although Trump often repudiated “political correctness,” his position was severely circumscribed by it.  He was no doubt correct in sensing that the climate of opinion laid down by the mainstream media and America’s “opinion elite” made it taboo to suggest that a major Islamic presence in American life should be avoided.

 

The result is that a question of existential importance – of whether the West is to continue to exist as such – is repressed.   If mass immigration into the United States and Europe, and the non-replacement birthrates of the historic European population, continue, the erstwhile populations will be supplanted.  The physical locations will remain, but the people will be different.  They will represent cultures and belief systems to which many will most likely be tenaciously loyal, so there is reason to expect that the culture and institutions of the present will no longer continue.  The implications are examined in a number of books that have warned of “the death of the West.”[5]

 

This third option would call for a deliberate policy of the West’s staying the West, while leaving the Muslim populations within the Islamic swath.  It would mean the end of mass migration of Muslims to the West, and a concomitant part of it would be for the United States to defer from intervention into the Islamic countries, forsaking the post-Cold War aspiration of making each of the societies over in the American image.  (We recall that Osama bin Laden’s primary complaint was that Americans were present within “the land of Islam.”)

 

The books reviewed in this article were selected out of our desire to know more about jihadism and sharia. The authors give much information and make important points, some vital.  But they do not represent all of the existing viewpoints, and we hope readers will join us in thinking there is potentially much more to learn.

 

 

Jihadism, Terror and Rivalries in the Middle East: Isis, Hezbollahis and Taliban

Hoshang Noraiee

Hoshang Noraiee, 2016

 

What is often overlooked by those of us who are so rightly preoccupied with jihadi violence in the West is that the many branches within radical Islam mostly hate (and are anxious to kill) each other.  Within the broad Islamic swath, there are moderates, and – just as in the traditional population in Europe and the United States – there is, according to Noraiee, presumably a “silent majority” that is hardly heard over the articulate voices of the radicals, but within the precincts of the radicals themselves there is a chaos of blood-thirsty sectarian animosity.  As one reads this short book by Hoshang Noraiee, the impression of a mound of fire ants is reinforced by a great many details about sects, rivalries and personalities.

 

It would help if Noraiee told us more about himself.  He is described as an independent researcher who has taught at the University of Westminster and London Metropolitan University.  Presumably, by inference from his name and subject, he is himself a Muslim, but we don’t know that, or where he is from.  It is to the book itself that we look for an appreciation of his credentials and the extent of his knowledge.  While it makes no pretension of being “the definitive book” on radical Islam, readers will find it quite a good introduction.

 

One reason the book isn’t “definitive” is that Noraiee has limited its scope to the Middle East.  He has nothing to say about the Islamic penetration of Europe and its many ramifications, which include a challenge to the continued existence of Europe as Europe.  Nor does he delve more than slightly into the vastly important subject of who the “moderates” are, what they believe, and to what extent their influence may (or may not) eventually bring Islam into the modern age and dampen the fires, so reminiscent of the internecine conflicts within medieval Christianity, that now burn so fiercely.  Rather, the book’s value lies in the extensive information it gives about the radical jihadist movements where they are most centered, which is the Middle East.  Nevertheless, a caution: the subject is vastly more variegated than we are able to convey.  Almost certainly Noraiee himself, in this 235 page book, hasn’t covered all aspects, even though readers will find considerably more information than we are able to mention here.

 

As we have said, what strikes us most about his account is the extent to which the Middle East is a cauldron of boiling hatreds, partly toward the West but most especially of its many factions toward one another.  Before we can review their rivalries, however, it is necessary to see who the factions are, and what Noraiee tells us about them.

 

The Many Faces of Islam

 

The primary division: Sunni and Shia. Although there are differences between Sunni and Shia (and within each itself) on many levels, the two branches of Islam disagree most fundamentally about who the legitimate successors to the Prophet Mohammad have been.  Sunnis look to four caliphs (Abubakr, Omar, Osman, and Ali), who were the Prophet’s senior deputies.  The Shia accept only the last of these, Ali.  They hold that he “and his 11 descendants were the only legitimate Imams.”  A 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi, who disappeared, will come back as a messiah “to rule and bring real justice.”

 

The Sunni

 

Although all Sunnis agree that the four caliphs are Mohammad’s legitimate successors, they are divided into four types of “jurisprudence,” each with its own branches, such as Wahhabism and Deobandism.  (“Jurisprudence” pertains to the interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith.  Noraiee explains that “Hadith” is the body of traditions coming from Mohammad’s words and actions.)

 

Salafism.  In a way similar to Protestants within Christianity, Salafists call upon Muslims to consult the Quran and Hadith directly in their search for Islamic purity rather than to rely on intermediaries.  They look only to Islam’s first three generations, and consider the four traditional Sunni schools of jurisprudence polluted by non-Islamic rituals.   The Salafists have a large network of Madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan, second only to the Deobandi.  They are themselves divided into three branches.  Not all Salafists accept the teachings of Sayyid Qutb, but he is a source of inspiration for many.  Noraiee describes Qutb as “a radical Muslim Brotherhood ideologue” who called for “eternal jihad” (struggle).  Through the ideological leadership of Abu Bakar Naji, who wrote The Management of Savagery, ISIS is Salafist.

 

Wahhabism.  The followers of Mohammad ibn al-Wahhab (who lived in the 18th century) are dominant in Saudi Arabia, which accordingly is considered Sunni-Wahhabist.  Noraiee says their views are similar to the Salafists, including being hard-line and adamantly anti-Shia.  He says they have been “successful in spreading their radical ideas among many other Muslims all over the world,” doing so with generous financial support from Saudi Arabia.

 

Deobandism.  We are told that this started in India in the 1860s, seeking through education to purify Islam, moving away from Hanafism’s mysticism and Hinduism.  [“Purify” is a recurrent theme in much Islamic thinking.[6]]  It was restrictive toward music, singing and dancing, and toward “women’s visibility in public and women’s dress code.”  There are Deobandi jihadist factions, but Noraiee says many of the Deobandi religious leaders are “traditional or quietist.”  Radicalism has increased as Deobandis supported the Taliban.  For almost the past two centuries, the Deobandis have run a “vast network” of madrassas (religious schools), especially in India and Pakistan.

 

Al-Qaeda.  As the reputed perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks on the United States,[7] al-Qaeda is often thought of as the more aggressive of the Sunni jihadist groups, but that reputation has been eclipsed by internal rivalries and by ISIS, a movement that grew out of “al-Qaeda in Iraq.”  Nevertheless, al-Qaeda continues to have networks throughout the world, several identified by area, such as “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”  Its present commander is the Egyptian Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, the successor to Osama bin Laden.  It is interesting that although al-Zawahiri is a forceful promoter of violence toward the West, he differs from Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, the founder of “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” in taking a milder approach to Shias and other Sunnis.  Noraiee says of al-Zawahiri that “while he rejected Shias, he considered them ignorant and thus in need of further guidance.”  Al-Zarqawi (1966-2006), on the other hand, “killed ordinary Shiites” (i.e., Shias) and “promoted harsh engagement” even with Sunnis of a somewhat different persuasion.

 

ISIS.  A Salafist jihadist movement, ISIS[8] inherited “the most hard-line of al-Qaeda traditions.”  Noraiee spells out in detail the guiding ideas of Abu Bakar Naji, which call for a jihad that passes through successive stages of extreme violence in a “total war to destroy others’ identities and existence.”  The goal, according to Naji, is a caliphate involving both “societal purification and territorial expansion.”  The leaders of ISIS are mainly Salafist-educated Arabs who have little connection with madrassas, and include many Muslims who have received their education in the West.  Consistently with that, many of its combatants are “foreign fighters” who come to it from outside Syria or Iraq.  A spokesman has invited Muslims to join “if you disbelieve in democracy, secularism, nationalism, as well as all the other garbage and ideas from the West.”  ISIS claims that its caliphate is the only legitimate one, and combines this exclusionary attitude with a desire for world expansion.  To that end, it makes abundant use of social media, and has an English-language magazine.

 

Taliban.  Once led by Mullah Omar, the Taliban became divided over his successor after his death in 2013.  The Taliban name is derived from “school boys,” coming from the word “talibs,” the students who attended Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan. The Taliban have their roots in the Pashtun tribe, although not all Pashtuns are Taliban.  The movement originated in a struggle against the mujahidin warlords who took over in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union was defeated there.  Noraiee says the Taliban haven’t formulated a literature crystalizing their ideology.  Rather, they are locally rooted, mixing their Islamic religious views with local customs.  The movement spread to Pakistan, but otherwise seems to have no expansionist or international aspirations.  This is not to say that the Taliban are not brutal or militant: “It was mainly given publicity for its strict policies against women’s education [and] demolition of historical heritage sites.”  They provided al-Qaeda shelter early on, but are not affiliated with it.

 

Boko Haram.  This Wahhabist/Salafist group is infamous for its brutality, which arguably exceeds that of any of the others.  It is centered in northeast Nigeria, but extends also to Cameroon, Chad and Niger.  In early 2015, it declared its allegiance to ISIS.

 

“Awakening Movement” (Iraq).  During the U.S. involvement in Iraq, one hundred thousand Sunni tribesmen from Anbar Province were mobilized to fight al-Qaeda.  A key development (marking for the opponents of ISIS a disastrous loss of a major U.S. ally) occurred later when many of the tribal militias joined ISIS, feeling deeply alienated from the Maliki government in Baghdad.

 

Al-Nosrah Front (also called the Nusra Front).  This is one of the radical jihadist groups seeking to overthrow President Assad in Syria.  In common with ISIS, it grew out of “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” and it remains affiliated with al-Qaeda.  Although sometimes working with ISIS, it has also clashed violently with ISIS over territorial control.  Its relationship with ISIS is said to have deteriorated after ISIS tried to absorb it in 2013.

 

The Shia

 

Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI).  Noraiee discusses at length the thinking of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who led the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979.   Khomeini, in common with so many others, sought a “purification” of Islam, “brutally suppressing… his opponents’ interpretation of Islam” and advancing “a specific Shia interpretation.”  Noraiee points out that this did not prevent Khomeini from using much the same rhetoric and ideas as the radical Salafists such as Sayyid Qutb (despite Qutb’s advocating killing Shia).   The IRI actively supports the Assad government in Syria, the Maliki government in Iraq, and Hezbollah in Lebanon

Noraiee doesn’t give much attention to other Shia factions, but mentions Hezbollah in Lebanon as being associated with “hard-line elements in Iran” and backing Assad in Syria.  He also writes briefly of the Shia militias in Iraq, which are “organized and supported by Iran” and are, in the opinion of Kurdish leader Masrour Barzani, “even worse than ISIS in Iraq.”

 

We submitted this article to a friend from Bangladesh raised as a Muslim, and he commented that it would be well “to include smaller Shi’ite groups like the Alawites of Syria, the Druze of Lebanon and Israel, and the dispersed but cosmopolitan Ismailis who, despite their small numbers, play an outsized role in the evolution of political Islam’s internal conflicts and external impact.”

 

Others

 

Sufism.  Noraiee mentions Sufism several times without telling much about it.  It is not considered a sect, but rather a “dimension” of Islam that for over a millennium has sought a mystical inner experience of Islamic Truth.  All Muslims, including Shias, can be Sufists, although Sunnis predominate in the leadership.   There are a number of Sufi orders, and a variety of devotional practices.  Adherents meet in congregations under the leadership of Sufi masters.

 

The moderates.  In several places, Noraiee speaks of “ordinary, moderate Muslims,” distinguishing them from radical jihadists.  His references include: “more moderate Wahhabis and Salafists” … “conservative and even quietist Sunni authorities” … “moderate Islamists, particularly Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as…” and “large sections of Deobandis are still traditional, quietist, and conservative.”  He tells how “in a 2015 fatwa, over 1,000 Indian Islamic scholars – including muftis and imams – have called ISIS’s actions ‘absolutely inhuman,’” and in an Appendix he spells out the Executive Summary of an Open Letter that 175 Islamic scholars sent to the head of ISIS.  The letter asserted the right of Muslims to differ on anything other than fundamentals of the Islamic faith, and declared that Islam forbids killing innocents, diplomats, journalists, and aid workers.  It said Islam forbids mistreating Christians or any “People of the Scripture”; the reintroduction of slavery; the forcing of people to convert; the denial of “their rights” to women [although this causes us to ask what the signers’ views are about the rights women have]; the use of torture; and the declaration of a caliphate “without consensus from all Muslims.”  Noraiee’s readers will find it worthwhile the read the entire Executive Summary, which covers still more.  As with anything of its sort, it suggests many questions, both about what it says (such who the signers count among the “innocents”) and what it doesn’t say.  In its allusions to moderation, Noraiee’s book leaves much unexplored about an aspect of Islam that is of especial importance to those, in the West and among Muslims themselves, who are looking for allies against radical jihadism.  It whets our appetite to know more.  It would be well, for example, to be informed about Saudi Arabia’s seeming contradictions.  We know the country is Wahhabist/Salafist, but Noreiee tells us its top official clerics have condemned ISIS and have said that “terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.”  The Saudi grand mufti has said “that under sharia law, terrorists merit the punishment of execution….”

 

The Rivalries 

 

The larger picture of blood-thirsty animus among the jihadists themselves is commented upon by Noraiee when he refers to “conflicts we now find erupting between radical jihadists, not only in Syria and Iraq but also in all other parts of the world.”  Our reference to this as “rivalry” is perhaps too limited, since that word suggests primarily a struggle for position.  Most assuredly the conflicts reflect such a struggle, but they also go to deep-seated differences among people who see things in black and white, regard each difference as an existential chasm, and have little if any regard for the lives of the “others.”  A shorthand way of saying this is that the conflicts are among fanatics.  It is a fanaticism that wears various faces, along a spectrum from hooded beheaders to soft-spoken, clean-cut young Iranian business administration professors in a mid-western American university who comment casually that it is all right to kill a Baha’i on the street.

 

The mutual hatreds run together into a tangled web, complicating any effort to do more than point to a few of them specifically.  Noraiee mentions the effort by Arab countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to “weaken Iran.”  Turkey is, in addition, active against ISIS and “has continued to attack Kurdish forces.”  Al-Qaeda and ISIS are both “threats against Saudi Arabia,” and we recall that in 1987 “about 400 pilgrims, mostly from Iran, were killed” by Saudi police in Mecca as the “pilgrims” marched in a political demonstration.  In Iraq, even years after the withdrawal of American troops, explosions occur so often that the world virtually takes for granted an amount of mutual slaughter that would seem inconceivable elsewhere.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban are seen as “unbelievers” by “radical Salafists,” have long conducted their warfare against the mujahidin warlords and the established government of the country, have fought against the Iranian Shia on Iran’s eastern border, and have clashed among themselves over the succession after the death of Mullah Omar.

 

ISIS, of course, fights both “the far and the near enemies,” and these include almost everybody.  ISIS claims exclusive dominion over the Islamic world and, beyond that, wants the eventual “global rule of ‘real’ Muslims.”  Noraiee cites al-Zarqawi’s “ideological blueprint” as calling for opposition to “Shias and the Iranian regime.”  Accordingly, “ISIS has attacked Shia mosques in Kuwait, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and even Bangladesh,” and has sought to have the Sunni population in Iran revolt there.  The violence, however, has not just been against Shias; an Islamic scholar reports that “ISIS has not hesitated to kill many Sunni clerics who oppose them in different countries.”   As ISIS has expanded into Afghanistan, it has had “many bloody clashes” with the Taliban.  In June 2015 “ISIS supporters… beheaded 10 members of the Taliban.”  In Syria, ISIS has executed “some senior members of al-Nosrah Front.”   Jaish-al Islam is a coalition of fifty rebel factions fighting the Assad government in Syria, and the brutality of its clash with ISIS is illustrated by ISIS’s having beheaded eleven of its members, prompting a revenge beheading of eighteen ISIS members.  Each group has taken a macabre pleasure in videoing the beheadings.[9]

 

Although its treatment seems out of proportion to that given his other topics, Noraiee has devoted an entire section to a jihadist and ethnic nationalist movement among Sunnis in southeastern Iran.  At its origin this movement was known as Jondollah – the Army of God.  As with other Sunni/Salafist groups, it sought to “purify” Islam and hated Shias as well as moderate Sunnis, starting its armed struggle in 2004 with beheadings, suicide bombings, and “deliberately indiscriminate massacre of civilians in Shia places of worship.”  It has not, however, had international objectives (i.e., sought to fight “the far enemy”).  One of its leaders has called for the killing of all Israelis as collaborators with the Israeli government.   Jondollah split into several small factions, by no means homogeneous, after Iran executed its first leader in 2010.  Its main successor organization, Jaish-e Adl (JAD), has moved away from Islamic jihadism and toward Baluch[10] nationalism, becoming more accepting of both Shia and moderate Sunnis.  As an indication that radical jihadists are often a loud and violent minority, Noraiee says Jondollah has not enjoyed general public support within the Sunni population of perhaps 1.5 to 2 million people in the Baluchistan area.

 

So we see from this partial summary that Noraiee’s readable short book, though by no means exhaustive or definitive, is an excellent introduction.

 

Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad

Leo Hohmann

WND Books, 2017

 

Leo Hohmann is a long-time journalist who is news editor for World Net Daily, a major conservative internet news outlet.  Stealth Invasion is a rich source of information about Muslim immigration, with primary emphasis upon the United States.  He is conservative, deeply critical of the increasing Muslim presence, and orients his discussion, especially near the end of the book, to Christian readers.  Whether these qualities decrease – or rather increase – the weight to be given to his judgments is for each of our readers to decide.  What we are doing with these reviews is to lay out three contributions that we consider significant to the subject, and which provide information most of us lack.

 

Hohmann cites a report by the Pew Research Center in January 2016 that estimates that at that time three and a third million Muslims lived in the United States, vested either with citizenship or permanent legal status.  An additional 240,000 come in each year, he says, in various capacities: as refugees, green-card holders, students, or workers on temporary work visas.  After the civil war began in Syria in March 2011, more than 13,000 refugees from that country were resettled in American communities by October 1, 2016.

 

The mechanism for this influx is elaborate.  Nine nonprofit agencies bring in refugees under contract with the U. S. government, and engage more than 350 subcontractors.  The VOLAGs (volunteer agencies) include the International Rescue Committee, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, the Ethiopian Community Development Council, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and five major Christian denominations or councils.  An annual “abstract” is submitted by each resettlement contractor for each of the communities receiving refugees.  These abstracts contain information about the number of refugees, their origins, and the services they will receive.  The public is in the main not informed about all this, given the silence that prevails among the local media.

 

Hohmann describes in detail how much of the resettlement is done in secret, is imposed on local communities without their consent, gives rise to local resistance, and divides communities.  Of the 132,000 Somali refugees brought in since 1983, he says “they have been secretly planted in dozens of communities.”  He adds that “the people in these communities are never told that the changes being foisted upon them are being centrally planned by bureaucrats in Washington and the resettlement agencies….”  Secretary of State John Kerry overrode the request by over two dozen state governors not to resettle Syrian refugees in their states because of concerns that vetting is inadequate to screen out terrorists.   As residents find their communities changing for the worse, resistance movements spring up, but Hohmann says they wither as people find the local governments and media unresponsive.  He devotes a chapter to the impact on Amarillo, Texas, a city of 240,000, where seventy-five different languages and dialects are spoken within its school system and “small ghettos” have fragmented the city.

 

The initial resettlements are only part of the story.  Of the 240,000 mentioned above, approximately half are issued “green cards.”  This puts them on “a fast track toward full U.S. citizenship, including voting rights.”  There is a multiplier: those with green cards are “given the opportunity to bring their families into the United States.”  There are H1-B and H2-B visas for skilled and unskilled workers, respectively; and an “entrepreneur visa” to do such things as “run hotels and convenience stores.”   In addition, a yearly “Diversity Visa Lottery” is held to admit about 50,000 people from countries that don’t “otherwise send many immigrants to the United States.”

 

As mentioned above, the United States has resettled 132,000 Sunni Muslims from Somalia in American communities since 1983, and Hohmann says an immigration lawyer told him that most Somali asylum-seekers “never show up for their asylum hearings,” but are not deported.  We are told that “refugees are different from asylum seekers, who show up uninvited at the border,” whereas refugees come in through the provisions of the Refugee Act of 1980.  (Illegal immigrants, euphemistically known as “undocumented,” who have come in by the millions are another category altogether.)  Those arriving as refugees, Hohmann says, “immediately qualify for a full slate of government goodies that aren’t offered to most other immigrants.”  These include “everything from subsidized housing to food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, cash stipends, and Medicaid.” They can apply for citizenship after they’ve been in the country five years.

 

Except for the illegal immigration, all of this is done under the color of law.  As chairman of the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Edward Kennedy shepherded the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 through Congress.  Family reunification, not the earlier per-country quota system, became the guiding principle.  It has become commonplace to quote Kennedy as having assured the Senate that “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”  This assurance has certainly not proved true.     During the intervening years, Hohmann says, “Congress, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, has done nothing to stem the tide.”  As with so much else in American social thinking, the philosophy has morphed from a bare beginning to something quite expansive.  In a commencement address at Boston’s Northeastern University in May 2016, then-Secretary of State John Kerry “told students to prepare for a ‘borderless world.’”

 

Hohmann discusses the nature of the Muslim population in the United States.  Although he acknowledges that “there are many good Muslims,” he is one of those who see reason for concern.  The fact that “only certain Muslims take the principles of jihad seriously enough to attack us” doesn’t fully reassure him.  Hohmann says that “due to the nature of Islam, it’s very difficult, often impossible, to sniff out a radicalized Muslim before he strikes.”  Moreover, the situation is not static: “Terrorism experts tell us the process of radicalization can happen within a matter of weeks.”

 

He notes the refugees’ “poor record of assimilation.”[11]  “Muslim women sue their employers to be able to wear the hijab.  Schools, hospitals, and prisons must provide halal meat… Muslims push for separate sharia tribunals to settle their family disputes.”   Some two dozen Somalis in Minnesota have sued their employer for “having been denied a place to pray at the manufacturing plant.” It is possible, of course, that none of this is representative of the Muslim population in general (although we don’t know that), but “a 2015 study commissioned by the Center for Security Policy found that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred to live under sharia law.”  For those under thirty, it was 60 percent.  The same poll showed that “nearly a quarter believe the use of violent jihad is justified in establishing sharia.”  Hohmann points out how “more than forty” Somalis have either tried to join terrorist groups overseas or been “tried and convicted of providing material support to overseas terrorist organizations.”

 

The Muslim Brotherhood , founded in 1928 and with Sayyid Qutd [sic] as a “doctrinal godfather,” is present in eighty countries, but as “an extreme Islamist organization[12] whose overarching goal is to create a global caliphate governed by sharia,” it has a long history of conflict within the Islamic swath.  This has led to bans in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Russia.  Hohmann gives considerable attention to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, where, according to “former FBI counterterrorism specialist John Guandolo… almost all the major U.S. Muslim organizations are dominated” by it.  “Front groups” of the Muslim Brotherhood are said to include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim-American Society (MAS), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which “holds the deed to roughly 25 percent of the mosques in North America.”

 

We are admonished to pay more attention to what Islamists say to each other than they do to the American public.  Hohmann tells of a speech given at the annual convention of the Muslim-American Society in late 2015 “openly calling for an Islamic-inspired revolution in America.”  He refers to a “notoriously radical mosque” in Boston, and another in Phoenix.  Part of the evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2007 was “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” written in 1991 and “seized in 2004 by FBI agents during a raid on a Muslim Brotherhood safe house in northern Virginia.”  The Memorandum urged the adoption of an “absorption mentality,” spoke of a “civilization jihad process,” and explained that “the brothers must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”  The result, Hohmann says, is that “unlike the violent jihad we see in daily acts of terror around the world, civilization jihad is stealthy and less obvious.  It uses migration, high birthrates, and lack of assimilation to build a parallel society.” The 2004 FBI raid also discovered, according to Guandolo, a recording of a speech by a Muslim Brotherhood leader about Muslim training camps and firearms training in America.

 

It is part of the mindset of many Americans to reject all of this as fabrication and paranoia.  There are a good many indicia, however, that make it less than reasonable to dismiss it out of hand.  A simple dismissal turns a blind eye to the many manifestations of Islamic radicalism across the world.  The indicia are enough to make the existence of a threat (both of physical violence and of attempted cultural displacement) an open question.  It is arguable that the question need not be resolved.  Readers will recall an option we mentioned earlier: that a threat, if there is one, need not exist.  A threat from Islam is important to the United States (and Europe) only because large-scale Muslim immigration has been welcomed.  If Islam stays within its historic swath (together, perhaps, with the United States’ staying out of their affairs), it is not an existential issue for the West.

 

The demographic transformation of Europe receives rather little attention from Hohmann, but is an essential part of the bigger picture.  The world teems with people eager to come into the West.  Patrick Buchanan writes that “Africa has a billion people, a number that will double by 2050, and double again to 4 billion by 2100.”  He asks, “Are those billions of Africans going to endure lives of poverty under ruthless, incompetent, corrupt and tyrannical regimes, if Europe’s door remains wide open?”  We have the impression that the horrors in Syria have been the reason for the flood into Europe, but Hohmann points out that “while the media mostly blamed the influx on the Syrian civil war, only 20 percent of the 381,412 refugees and migrants who arrived in Europe by sea in the first eight months of 2015 were from Syria [our emphasis].  The rest were from all over the Middle East, central Asia, and North Africa.”  The Schengen Agreement, signed by five European countries in 1985 but now grown to encompass 26 countries, did away with internal border checks within the “Schengen Area,” with the result that once the migrants have gotten inside Europe they have been able to move freely from one place to another.  A recent exception: the “European migrant crisis” in 2016 caused Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Poland and Sweden to enact temporary border controls.

 

Although Stealth Invasion deals with only with the specific issue of Muslim immigration, it is worthwhile to consider its many revelations about the governmental, academic and media enthusiasm for that immigration as, in effect, a case study of the mechanisms of governance by America’s (and Europe’s) dominant opinion elite.  Hohmann gives many examples of how the “establishment media,” national and local, hammers home what can only be characterized as pro-immigration propaganda.  Flowery feature stories and compassionate anecdotes are combined with a failure to cover unfavorable information, amounting to a vast blackout.  Violent crimes aren’t reported; and, when they are, the perpetrators often aren’t identified as Muslim immigrants (just as the public usually is not told that a crime was committed by an illegal Hispanic immigrant).  Those who dissent are denounced as “bigots” and “Islamophobes.”  Little is more taboo in American life than a violation of “political correctness.”  The book is replete with many specifics.

 

The media are just a part of it.  The web of institutions that occupy most of the spaces in American life play an active role.  These range from schools whose students are taken on field trips to mosques, to universities that bring in “thousands of young people from the Middle Eastern countries,” to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center, to church groups acting out of a sense of caring but that also profit from serving as resettlement agencies, to the “sanctuary cities” that refuse to enforce immigration laws, to the non-governmental agencies involved in humanitarian enterprises – and to many more, besides.  (Such a list is inadequate even to suggest how ubiquitous the institutional presence is, but readers are told a lot about it in Stealth Invasion.)

 

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam

Paul Sutliff

Tate Publishing and Enterprises, LLC, 2016

 

Paul Sutliff, like Leo Hohmann, sounds the alarm against the Muslim penetration of the West, centering on the “civilization jihad” that he sees occurring in society, government, on college campuses and in the public schools.  In an Afterword that concludes his book, he says “the most important action that has to be accomplished is to declare the Muslim Brotherhood an enemy of the United States.”

 

His credentials are not nearly as extensive as Hohmann’s, nor his knowledge of Islam as intimate as Noraiee’s, but his message is much the same as Hohmann’s and is to be taken seriously.  His education includes a bachelor’s degree in Religion and Philosophy, and a Master’s in Education, each from a Christian college.  He is a teacher of social studies at the high school level.  Placed in the context of the other books we are examining here, Sutliff’s contribution is largely to supply information that adds to the very considerable detail we have already seen.

 

We have commented on the inability of non-Muslims to know fully and accurately “what is going on” in Muslim thinking and activity in America and Europe.  There is a profound epistemological problem in understanding what doctrines are extant, what their children are taught, how much “radical jihadism” there is and what influences (such as the Internet) provoke it, what they are saying to each other in their social media, to what extent their way of life corresponds with or stands in conflict to that of a Western society – and so much more.  The American public, for example, would be hard pressed to say whether female genital mutilation is occurring among them, whether fatwas are entered against those who convert to Christianity or otherwise leave the Islamic faith, whether honor killing (as occurs elsewhere, say) is condemned or looked upon favorably, and whether the Muslim population in general or in families will report any pending terrorist activity or will cooperate with authorities after one is carried out.

 

A mask is placed over Muslim reality if the Islamic immigrants adhere to a tactic discussed by Sutliff.  “My extensive research into Islam revealed that it is part of their belief structure to lie about what they believe to protect their faith.  This is called taqiyyah.  There are five additional terms under Islam that speak of lying to non-Muslims…. Yes, this does mean I do not trust Muslims to tell me the truth about their religion.”  Whether such a mask is worn by American and European Muslims is yet another thing most of us can’t know.  For his part, however, Sutliff cites a number of reasons for thinking it is.

 

Among the reasons, he says, is that American students are taught about only five of what are really six “pillars of Islam.”   The five pillars are shahada (creed), the salat (five daily prayers), sawm (fasting), hajj (pilgrimage), and zakat (almsgiving).  “But,” Sutliff tells us, “there is a sixth pillar.”  It “was revealed by Al-Sarakhsi – an eleventh-century Hanafi iman, mujtahid, and judge – who outlined the eight rights of Allah… Within [the] first right are encompassed the six pillars… The sixth is jihad (holy war).”

 

The mask is compounded, according to Sutliff, when disinformation about Islam is passed along to American students in their textbooks.  As he dissects a popular textbook’s treatment of Islam, to which it devotes 44 pages in contrast to 14 for Christianity and 22 for Judaism, he points to much that is superficial gloss, passing over unattractive realities.

 

When our friend from Bangladesh, in whom we have great confidence for an honest and informed opinion, commented on the concern about taqiyyah as a doctrine of deception among American Muslims, he downplayed it, not sensing “some conspiracy” among them to hide their true feelings.  He said the small Shi’ite groups like the Alawites, the Druze and the Ismailis do indeed “make the discretion of taqiyyah central to their theology as persecuted minorities among their more orthodox Muslim neighbors,” but this is to protect themselves from persecution by other Muslims.  An article to which he referred us explained that Muslims on various occasions historically have had to dissimulate about their beliefs in situations where they would otherwise be killed.  It observed that this is not unlike those who have professed other faiths.  Thus, the friend’s comments to us have highlighted what we have said here: that there is much that is indeterminate about the subject, requiring an open mind and further study.

 

As with the Noraiee and Hohmann books, Sutliff’s contains much more than we have been able to mention here.  All three are worth reading, for their own sakes or as part of the larger study we just mentioned, as each of us seeks to penetrate further into a subject that is of vital importance to the West.

 

ENDNOTES

  1. The quotes from President Bush and Secretary of State John Kerry are given in the Paul Sutliff book (at pages 41 and 42) that will be reviewed here.

 

  1. The demand for cheap labor is not a recent development, though globalization has given it new shape.  “Guest workers” from Turkey have for several decades been invited into Germany in large numbers.  In the United States, less-paid immigration, both legal and illegal, has been welcomed by major businesses and agricultural groups.  Historically, most (perhaps all) societies incorporated slavery, peonage or serfdom into their basic economies.  Although “involuntary servitude” in those forms has in the main been done away with, “cheap labor” is still available through immigration and/or out-sourcing.

 

  1. This is the view expressed by Leo Hohmann on page 236 of one of the books we will be reviewing.

 

  1. It is little commented upon, but the combination of a large Muslim presence and an inability to know what is transpiring among them has serious implications for “civil liberties.”  This is so because if jihadist violence grows as a threat and is to be prevented, the society may come to feel it imperative to resort to a broad and long-continuing surveillance, even though that is incompatible with the liberties fundamental to a free society.  It would necessarily be surveillance without the prior showing of “probable cause” as to each individual surveilled, would destroy personal autonomy and privacy, and would entail secretive and extensive police powers at odds with “limited government” and “the rule of law.”  The prospect of an otherwise unacceptable surveillance – with possible long-term consequences changing the historic nature of American society – is one of the things that should be at the forefront of any consideration of mass Islamic immigration.  (Those who call themselves “libertarians” are inclined to support open borders.  They would do well to think about whether, as a de factomatter, that is consistent with their support for limited government.)

 

If such a “police state” comes into being, the Left, articulating its view from its many outlets, will predictably blame it on the main society.  That will be misplaced blame, since the cause will more reasonably be found in the creation of the threatening conditions in the first place.  Such a misplacing of blame can for many decades warp the understanding of our historical epoch.

 

  1. See especially Patrick J. Buchanan’s The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization(New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), which we reviewed in this Journal in our Spring 2002 issue, pp. 126-130.  The review can be accessed free of charge at www.dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info as Book Review 68 (i.e., BR68).

 

  1. The desire for “purity” that seems ubiquitous among the Islamic groups is reflected in there being two different forms of “jihad” (struggle).  Noreiee explains that “jihad asghar” (small struggle) has to do with physical combat, whereas “jihad akbar” (great struggle) “relates to the comparatively greater challenge of self-improvement and spiritual warfare.”

 

  1. The author of this article is one of those who finds many reasons to doubt the conventional account of the 9/11 atrocities.  It that account is false, the implications are, of course, endless so far as our understanding of the contemporary world is concerned, including our understanding of such that is discussed in this article.

 

  1. Noreiee explains that although he uses the name ISIS (Islamic State in Syria), because it is the most commonly used designation, the group is also called Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), in addition to “Daesh,” a pejorative name that ISIS detests.

 

  1. We may wonder why beheading plays so prominent a role.  It may have something to do with the verse in the Quran that says “when you face those who are blasphemous, behead them to shed their blood.”

 

  1. Baluch is also spelled Baloch, and refers to a people spread across southeastern Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even the Arabian Peninsula.

 

  1. “Assimilation” was in general the American ideal under the “melting pot” aspiration, but pronouncedly separate identity has been a way of life for, say, the Amish in Kansas, orthodox Jews on the lower east side of Manhattan, and the Chinese in various Chinatowns.  Even when it remains the aspiration, assimilation is difficult, sometimes taking generations.  Now, though, within America’s dominant opinion culture, “multiculturalism” has replaced the hope for a “melting pot.”  What is now the norm is an accommodation of differences by many who are even eager to subordinate the mainstream to Muslim practices.

 

  1. By contrast, it is worthwhile to remember Noreiee’s mention of “moderate Islamists, particularly Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as….”

_________________________

Intro to Book Review of 3-Authors by Murphey

By John R. Houk

© March 29, 2018

_______________________

Jihadism and Muslim Immigration: Three Recent Books

 

Murphey info in the Intro 

 

McMaster Out – Bolton In and the Muslim Brotherhood


John R. Houk

© March 23, 2018

 

The swamp is draining slowly but to date, it is draining with the Dems and Deep State Obamanites/Clintonistas screaming all the way. With that in mind, President Trump’s business globalist-minded business-oriented Secretary of State is out. And Three-Star General H.R. McMaster is out seemingly more for abrasiveness with President and his own National Security staff than ideological differences.

 

I think a March 4 Wall Street Journal article provides the most cogent explanation of how Lt. Gen. McMaster lost favor in the Trump Administration:

 

 

… Gen. McMaster through the year positioned himself as one of Mr. Trump’s most hawkish allies in fractured debates on the president’s top national-security challenges, including North Korea.

 

But that, in turn, has put Gen. McMaster at odds with other members of the national-security team, especially Secretary of State Rex Tillerson [Gone] and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who have pushed for more measured approaches in policy debates, according to current and former Trump administration officials.

 

 

Hobbled in his ability to translate Mr. Trump’s sometimes-unorthodox ideas into concepts acceptable to more cautious members of the national-security team …

 

 

“In general, I think H.R. has been slightly more hawkish on most questions than most cabinet members and, in that regard, he’s aligned with the president’s instincts,” said Sen. Tom Cotton …

 

The issue that has brought the internal divisions to the forefront is North Korea, where Gen. McMaster has been a firm advocate for beefing up the military options, according to administration officials.

 

Gen. McMaster has raised the idea of taking a “preventive” strike against North Korea’s nuclear-missile program if diplomacy fails. And he has promoted the administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy against Pyongyang.

 

That has created alarm at the Pentagon and State Department, where officials worry that Gen. McMaster’s efforts could make it more likely that Mr. Trump would decide to strike North Korea.

 

 

Gen. McMaster also has alienated prospective allies in the military by directly calling combatant commanders around the world without first telling Mr. Mattis, U.S. officials said. …

 

 

Inside the White House, meanwhile, he has struggled to retain support from a volatile president who has lashed out over Gen. McMaster’s successful push to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and to preserve former President Barack Obama’s nuclear-containment deal with Iran.

 

He has been known to speak over other members of the national-security team in Situation Room meetings when he doesn’t like what he’s hearing and to frustrate the president with lengthy policy dissertations in the Oval Office.

 

“He doesn’t have any chemistry with the president,” said one former Trump administration official. “He lectures, and you can’t lecture the president.”

 

Last month, Mr. Trump READ ENTIRETY (Undermined and Beleaguered, H.R. McMaster Soldiers On; By Dion Nissenbaum and Gordon Lubold; WSJ; Updated 3/4/18 6:36 p.m. ET)

 

If the WSJ perspective is accurate, it seems to me McMaster didn’t disagree with the substance of President Trump, but rather the method. McMaster is being replaced by former UN Ambassador John Bolton as National Security Advisor. Mr. Bolton definitely follows the same substance of the President and Lt. Gen. McMaster. The trick will be if Mr. Bolton and President Trump can work together without arguing. I suspect Bolton will run into the same issues with the National Security Council staff as McMaster did. Time will of a Bolton/Military camaraderie.

 

Now that John Bolton will become the National Security Advisor, Counterjihad writer Ryan Mauro believes the stage is not complete to move to place the Muslim Brotherhood on the State Department’s Terrorist Watch List. Certain obstacles within the Trump Administration has been preventing the obvious move to occur. The exit of Tillerson being replaced by Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and the fortuitous anti-terrorist Gina Haspel as the first female CIA Director (pending Senate confirmation) were some of the first moves making it possible the Muslim Brotherhood where it belongs – bloody global Caliphate-minded Islamic terrorists.

 

Haspel detractors despise that she was involved in Black Site waterboard interrogation. Those that call waterboarding torture do not understand what true torture is. Torture that maims, physically and mentally incapacitates or results in death is true torture. Waterboarding does none of those things. It does provide the illusion of drowning which regardless of what detractors tell you, worked effectively in gaining information against Islamic terrorists (See: WATERBOARDING: A TOOL OF POLITICAL GOTCHASmall Wars Journal; The Architect Of Bush’s ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Program Wrote A Book About What Terrorists Told Him And It Is ELECTRIC Daily Caller 11/30/16; Perspectives on Enhanced Interrogation TechniquesCongressional Research Service 1/8/16, The CRS pdf shows facts without right and wrong conclusions).

 

Sign The Clarion Project’s petition to place the Muslim Brotherhood on the Terrorist Watch List now that the stage is set to make such a move effective.

 

JRH 3/23/18

Please Support NCCR

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

American Day of Reckoning for Muslim Brotherhood?

 

BY RYAN MAURO 

March 22, 2018 

Clarion Project

Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (Photo: Reuters)

 

The Muslim Brotherhood’s sigh of relief after being rescued by Secretary of State Tillerson and National Security Adviser McMaster has been replaced by a sweaty panic.

 

With Tillerson out and Pompeo in and McMaster’s days numbered, it is now probable that the Muslim Brotherhood will finally be designated by the State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, paving the way for its infrastructure in America to begin being dismantled.

 

Groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood network like the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamaat ul-Fuqra are likely to see a similar fate. President Trump’s desire to pressure Pakistan and more closely ally with India adds to the likelihood that these Pakistani-led groups will be blacklisted.

 

The incoming secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, was one of the earliest cosponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act when he was a member of Congress. Now, as secretary of state, he has the authority to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).

 

The newest version of the legislation is backed by 75 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate version introduced by Senator Ted Cruz has 4 cosponsors.

 

Now, most of the Trump Administration’s top officials are staunch foes of the Brotherhood, including:

 

  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was one of the few early cosponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act when he was a Senator.

 

  • Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who was forced to withdrawa senior appointment he desired who was a strong ally of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. However, he has articulately made the case for identifying the enemy as “political Islam” and described the negative impact of the Obama Administration’s friendly attitude towards the Brotherhood.

 

  • Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney, who was a cosponsor of the legislation when he was a congressman.

 

  • Senior adviser and chief speechwriter Stephen Miller

 

  • National Security Council’s Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications Michael Anton

 

  • Senior White House Adviser to the Department of Homeland Security Frank Wuco

 

  • Senior Department of Homeland Security Adviser Katharine Gorka (who is the wife of former Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka)

 

It is almost universally reported that National Security Adviser McMaster is about to be replaced, despite Trump’s denials (just like his denials before Tillerson was fired).

 

The leading candidate for his job is former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, another known supporter of FTO designation for the Brotherhood.

 

Trump’s pick for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, is presumably on the same page because Pompeo recommended her. However, she is expected to have a fight ahead of her to get confirmed by the Senate.

 

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley’s position is not known. She previously struck a neutral tone when asked about designating the Brotherhood, stopping short of defending Tillerson and McMaster’s known positions at the time, saying, “That is not something that has been discussed within the administration.”

 

Outside of the White House, President Trump is back to consulting with his former Deputy Assistant Dr. Sebastian Gorka, a passionate voice for designating the Brotherhood as an FTO.

 

Pompeo’s appointment represents a stunning reversal of fortune for the Muslim Brotherhood, which previously succeeded in getting plans for such a designation shelved. One Brotherhood official said the Islamist group had spent $5 million to lobby officials and influence the media. Brotherhood apologists even succeeded in influencing CIA assessments that conveniently leaked to the media.

 

The Brotherhood also deployed its defenders to Washington, D.C. and Qatar went on a spending binge hiring lobbyists, particularly those with close ties to the Trump campaign and the ability to influence Jewish Americans.

 

Qatar even managed to seduce a former senior staffer to Senator Ted Cruz—the very man who introduced the Senate version of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act—with a contract for $50,000 per month. Even President Trump reversed course on Qatar.

 

And now—the Muslim Brotherhood network is screaming.

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), identified by the Justice Department as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood, is fighting tooth and nail to stop Pompeo from getting confirmed by the Senate. One of the favorite tactics of the Brotherhood, especially CAIR, is deception.

 

CAIR has predictably labeled Pompeo as an “Islamophobe,” even though he empowered a convert to Sunni Islam at the CIA to fight Al-Qaeda and Iran. Its factsheet uses out-of-context quotes to paint Pompeo as an extremist, while CAIR paints the Brotherhood as “moderate.”

 

The evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group is overwhelming, including terrorist activity in the U.S. Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist group, is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing. Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 plot had links to the Brotherhood’s network in America.

 

The terror-funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation proved, in detail, that the Brotherhood’s international leadership runs a Hamas support network on American soil.

 

The Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood has long been intertwined with Al-Qaeda, just like the Libyan and Syrian branches. The Jordanian branch is essentially a single unit with Hamas. The biggest resistance is in regards to the Egyptian wing, the birthplace of the Brotherhood.

 

Investigator Patrick Poole’s three-part interview with a former senior Egyptian counterterrorism official connects the dots between the Brotherhood and the terrorists it claims are “rogues” that it should not be held accountable for.

 

Failing a blanket designation of the Brotherhood, an alternative approach would be to designate several Brotherhood branches where the group’s connection to terrorism is clearer. This approach would meet less political resistance.

 

The changes within the Trump Administration indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood’s day of reckoning is finally near.

 

PETITION – NO PLACE FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN U.S.

 

PETITION – NO PLACE FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN U.S.

_______________________

McMaster Out – Bolton In and the Muslim Brotherhood

John R. Houk

© March 23, 2018

____________________

American Day of Reckoning for Muslim Brotherhood?

 

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s Shillman Fellow and national security analyst and an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

 

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

 

About Clarion Project

 

Clarion Project is a non-profit organization that educates the public about the dangers of radical Islam.

 

Clarion’s award-winning films, seen by more than 85-million people, expose how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder, subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution, genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation and cultural jihad — to threaten the West.

 

The ClarionProject.org web site delivers news, expert analysis, videos, and unique perspectives about radical Islam, while giving a platform to moderate Muslims and human rights activists to speak out against extremism.

 

Clarion Project engages in grassroots activism to achieve its goals.

 

Clarion Project is READ THE REAT

 

 

Intro to LaSalle’s the Traitors Hillary & Barry


John R. Houk, Editor

William LaSalle, Author (Could be a pseudonym – not sure)

© February 16, 2018

 

William LaSalle posted a huge comment to my share at the G+ Community Truth Warriors. Google flagged it as spam with these loving words from the social platform masters: “Removed as spam and only visible to you”.

 

I thought, “Well that is annoying.” I began reading LaSalle’s post.

 

The LaSalle comment was huge which might have contributed to Google flagging as spam.

 

As (or if) you read the comment, LaSalle comes off as an angry person ranting about the state of affairs left for America by one of the most Presidential Administrations in U.S. history. The thing is LaSalle backs his rant with admittedly Conservative sourced links, yet he includes some links that are from the Left MSM.

 

AND I made the post even longer by adding some excerpts to most of those standalone source links for better context.

 

I might add I concur with 95% of LaSalle’s rants but not all. LaSalle has several paragraph-lists of nefarious individuals and organizations in which some overlap, one example:

 

The M.O. of George Soros, Barack Obama, Muslims, the Roman Catholic Church, Organized Crime, the United Nations, Obama’s Administration, Liberals, Socialists and Communists, and Hilary Clinton is the same.

 

I point the “Roman Catholic Church” in bold text. As huge as the comment is, his inclusion of the Catholics as nefarious actors is not sourced. This leads me to believe a bit of personal animus against Catholics which is not an uncommon issue even among good moral upstanding Protestants (as opposed to a hate group).

 

I am a Protestant/Charismatic/Word-of-Faith Christian. Being in this crowd I have received share of animus from Mainstream Protestants and Catholic in Denominational Christianity.

 

The irony of LaSalle’s animus toward Catholics is he is commenting to a post that showed my displeasure of Jew-Hating Muslims promoting the proven forgery/hoax document The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as legit.

 

Those that have animus toward Catholics have some legit gripes with Catholic Dogma, such as: Papal Infallibility, encouraging prayers to angels and canonized saints and so on.

 

The reality is that devout Catholics have the same Conservative Family values as Biblical-minded Protestants. Today’s modern world has both Catholics and Protestants that have eschewed the Bible as God’s Word to Believers. These watered down diluted Catholics and protestants are worthy of criticism but not animus. Well, that’s my two-cents on the Catholics.
You might want to bookmark William LaSalle’s comment enabling to return to where you left off if you need a break from reading this book of frustration of virus of Leftists polluting the U.S. Government and the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Blog Editor Update 2/17/18: It took me forever to format this post at my flagship Blog. Forgive me, I’m feeling a bit lazy and I’m choosing not to the format thing on this blog. Ergo, I am truncating this post through William LaSalle’s first stand alone link. Read the rest at SlantRight 2.0.]

JRH 2/16/18

Please Support NCCR

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

William LaSalle

Posted as a comment “Article In Egyptian Government Daily: Trump’s … About Jerusalem Is … Phase In … Of ‘The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion’

Comment posted at G+ Community Truth Warriors

Truth Warriors Date: Feb 15, 9:52 AM

Comment Date: Feb 15, 2018

Comment Marked as Spam by Google awaiting Moderator/Owner Final Decision

 

The Traitors Hillary and Barry and the criminal, socialist, radical Islamic Terrorist supporting Democrats.

 

More than 11,000 private messages from Julian Assange reveal the WikiLeaks founder believed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a “well connected, sadistic sociopath.”

On November 19, 2015, Assange said: “Her role in the war in Libya is what should bring her down, however, the GOP is too close to others who have benefitted to exploit this, it seems. that Hillary helped to sew the foundation for ISIS against Pentagon generals’ advice seems huge. But the GOP resolutely ignores it.

Our CIA and FBI have no credibility because from 2008 through 2016 they were on the wrong side.

 

Robert Mueller and Huma Mahmood Abedin should be a FBI paid Informants, to escape charges of Treason and working against the Government of the United States, on the Treason of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama and his Administration on the Uranium One Deal and the Election Tampering by George Soros and his NGO’s and the Nations with Islamic Law in 2008, 2012, and 2016.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895

What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal

Sessions has raised the possibility of the DOJ probing the matter, as Trump has publicly called for.

By LOUIS NELSON

11/14/2017 03:48 PM EST

 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week raised the possibility that a special counsel may be appointed to investigate potential wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation, specifically suggestions that a U.S. government panel approved the sale of a large uranium firm to Russian interests in exchange for donations to the foundation.

 

The so-called Uranium One deal has been a focus of conservative media and President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly asked on Twitter why the DOJ is not actively investigating the matter.

 

What is the Uranium One deal?

 

The deal in question involves the sale of a Canadian company, Uranium One, with mining interests in the U.S. to Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear energy agency. The sale occurred in stages, beginning in 2009 when Rosatom purchased a minority stake in Uranium One, and continued in 2010, when the Russian agency took ownership of a 51 percent share of the company. In 2013, a third transaction gave Rosatom full ownership of Uranium One.

 

With its purchase of Uranium One, Rosatom assumed control of roughly 20 percent of uranium production capacity in the U.S. The current licenses issued to Rosatom’s U.S. subsidiaries, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, prohibit the company from exporting uranium outside the country, according to OilPrice.com.

 

 

What are the allegations of wrongdoing?

 

Controversy surrounding the deal largely pertains to 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state in 2010 when the State Department signed off on Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One. Several of Uranium One’s owners were also donors to the Clinton Foundation, giving $145 million to the charitable foundation, and critics have alleged that Clinton greenlighted the sale to appease donors to her family’s … READ MORE at SlantRight 2.0

 

Civilization Jihadis are not terrorists. THEY ARE SEDITIOUS ENEMIES!


Petition saying “NO” to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States of America. The Constitution protects Religious Freedom, but NOT seditious religious terrorism!

 

Join the Clarion Project in drumming up support for the U.S. government to add the Muslim Brotherhood to the State Department’s terrorist list:

 

Say No to Muslim Brotherhood in the US

 

The Muslim Brotherhood is committed to replacing the American Constitution with sharia (Islamist) law. The Muslim Brotherhood is a supporter of terrorist organizations. It has no place in the United States.

 

By clicking the title of the above excerpt, you can add your name to the petition!

 

Perhaps even send the pdf composed by Paul Sutliff to your Senator and Congressmen which recognizes Islamic terrorist immigrants or homegrown terrorists operating under the design of the Muslim Brotherhood, are seditious traitors to the U.S. Constitution.

JRH 1/3/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Civilization Jihadis are not terrorists. THEY ARE SEDITIOUS ENEMIES!

 

By Paul Sutliff

January 1, 2018

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Wake Up – Civ. Jihadis are Seditious Enemies

 

After being given some great perspective into what I had deemed terrorism, I now have to change what I have been saying in order to more accurately provide in US legal terminology a truthful portrait of the war America is engaged in today.

 

That war is a war against jihadists both violent and non-violent. Violent jihadists are under US Law demined terrorists while non-violent jihadis are not. BUT they are both engaging in acts against the USA. Both are acting for the same reasons.

 

Attempted bombings, murders, and even financing those actions can be pursued and prosecuted under the law. Those jihadis which work in what is defined by the Muslim Brotherhood as Civilization Jihad are not able to be pursued under the Patriot Act, because their actions do not constitute what is defined in legalize as terrorism.

 

Both the Civilization Jihadist and the violent jihadist (aka terrorist) have the same objective. Their threat doctrines are indistinguishable from one another. The only difference is one has a short-term plan of action, the other has a long-term plan of action.

 

What can be done to stop the long-term plan jihadist? Lets begin by defining what a long-term jihadist does from their own written material. According to the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood of North America, their ultimate goal is to:  “eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within and “sabotage” 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.”

 

With this being the goal the objectives are obvious:

(1) Infiltrate college campuses for the purpose of:

 

a. stopping education on Islam that disagrees with what Muslim Brotherhood teaches.

b. disabling Americans as to the real intention and purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood.

c. Promoting misinformation that will create more sympathetic non-Muslims to endorse the actions of the civilization-jihadis as “moderates.”

d. Recruit new civilization-jihadists to engage in the agenda in a post college environment. Infiltrate government for the purpose of:

a. Protecting fellow Muslims.

b. Destroying the government from within. This could be as simple as slowing or stopping the machine called government from working as it is intended.

c. Sharing intelligence with the civilization jihadi leadership team.

d. Disrupting communications.

e. Placing misinformation

f. Enabling greater infiltration

(2)  Infiltrate government for the purpose of:

a. Protecting fellow Muslims.

b. Destroying the government from within. This could be as simple as slowing or stopping the machine called government from working as it is intended.

c. Sharing intelligence with the civilization jihadi leadership team.

d. Disrupting communications.

e. Placing misinformation

f. Enabling greater infiltration

(3) Make society accept and endorse the relevance of sharia in the USA. This means:

 

a. Push for acceptance of Islamic beliefs as the norm

b. Push for the acceptance of sharia in courts.

c. Running public relations campaigns with misinformation to recruit sympathy voters.

d. Running public relations campaigns against those who are exposing the civilization jihadi agenda.

With this said are their legal actions possible to protect Americans from this type of jihadi? The answer is both yes and no. It requires that those who commit violent jihadi actions be prosecuted not for terrorism but TREASON and those who are found working as civilization jihadis infiltrating organizations and government who are caught disabling the machine called government, or providing misinformation/propaganda with the intention of protecting their groups or membership should be charged with SEDITION.

IT IS ALL IMPORTANT TO CHANGE THESE TACTICS! We, myself included, need to stop referring to the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity but as an entity that suborns sedition in every country it is present. This means that Muslim Brotherhood in North America should be defined NOT as a terrorist entity but as entity whose sole purpose is to aide and abet in sedition in America. Due to it having declared war against North America. This is very important! It is why my proposed joint resolution has more teeth than Senator Cruz’s bill to declare the Muslim Brotherhood entity a terrorist group.

My resolution which follows is a recognition of a declared war against North America in the Explanatory Memorandum AND its recent declaration to wage war and shed blood in actions against the USA on December 6, 2017. Perhaps most enlightening in this declaration is its statement that its members in the Administration should consider themselves activated to actively work against the American government’s pledge to move the embassy to Jerusalem. This declaration should make them an enemy of the USA and thus make their organization in this country considered enemy combatants. How else do you interpret “we make blood, freedom and life, and we fight every aggressor and every supporter of aggression,” after declaring the USA to be an aggressor?

The Joint Resolution I proposed this past August now has an urgency to be passed! It will enable us to begin to act against the civilization jihadists by recognizing they have declared war against us. IF this resolution passes, then those persons and groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can be prosecuted with the charge of sedition. The US does not need to declare war against an entity to recognize that a group is acting in pursuit of a declared enemy’s goals. Please read the proposed resolution below and email me to receive a PDF copy.

 

 

 

___________________________

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

 

Paul Sutliff books with best deal at bottom of “Civilization Jihadis are not terrorists. THEY ARE SEDITIOUS ENEMIES!” post on his blog:

 

What Social Studies Teachers Need To Know About Islam

 

Stealth Jihad Phase 2: Infiltrate American Colleges

 

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam by Paul Sutliff

 

Islamo-Reality! Muslim Brotherhood Terrorism


John R. Houk

© December 31, 2017

 

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is an Islamic terrorist organization. Anyone who tells you different is a gullible Leftist, a lying Leftist or deceiving Muslim Apologist – cough … can you say, “CAIR”?

 

Paul Sutliff has put together an informative video exposing the nefarious terrorist nature of the MB. You need to watch the Sutliff video (POSTED BELOW!) to understand the reason that the State Department must add the MB to its terrorist list.

 

Senator Cruz in the Senate and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart in the House, have introduced a Bill that would force the State Department to declare the MB a terrorist organization.

 

Here’s the text from the Senate version of S.68 — 115th Congress (2017-2018):

 

To require the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress on the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, and for other purposes.

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 9, 2017

 

Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Roberts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

 

A BILL

 

To require the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress on the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, and for other purposes.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017”.

 

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

 

It is the sense of Congress that—

 

(1) the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)); and

(2) the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, should exercise the Secretary of State’s statutory authority by designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization.

 

SEC. 3. REPORT ON DESIGNATION OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS A FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

 

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate;

(B) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;

(C) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;

(D) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate;

(E) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;

(F) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate;

(G) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;

(H) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives;

(I) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives;

(J) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives;

(K) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives; and

(L) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives.

(2) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.—The term “intelligence community” has the meaning given that term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4)).

 

(b) Report.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the intelligence community, shall submit a detailed report to the appropriate congressional committees that—

 

(1) indicates whether the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)); and

(2) if the Secretary of State determines that the Muslim Brotherhood does not meet the criteria referred to in paragraph (1), includes a detailed justification as to which criteria have not been met.

 

(c) Form.—The report required under subsection (b) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex, if appropriate.

 

So, what do you know about the Muslim Brotherhood? This is the same organization based in Egypt and supported by former President Barack Hussein Obama to literally govern Egyptians.

 

Paul Sutliff would like his video exposing the MB nature to go viral in hopes that Americans will write/call their Senator, Congressman AND the U.S. State Department to get on the ball about Islamo-Reality and the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

 

JRH 12/31/17

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO: Hassan Al-Banna’s 50-Point Manifesto

 

Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Dec 29, 2017

 

This is the fourth Module in a course on the History of the Muslim Brotherhood, by Paul Sutliff, author, public speaker and educator.

____________________

Islamo-Reality! Muslim Brotherhood Terrorism

John R. Houk

© December 31, 2017

___________________

Hassan Al-Banna’s 50-Point Manifesto

 

Paul Sutliff GoFundMe page on Civilization Jihad Awareness

 

I am hoping to finance a professionally designed Website which will coordinate my work as a radio show host, my work as author, my work as a public speaker and, my work as a blogger.  I have received 3 estimates each was for $5000.

 

The site will combine


1)  http://paulsutliff.blogspot.com and

2)  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/global-patriot-radio/2017/10/25/civilization-jihad-awareness-with-paul-sutliff

3) https://www.amazon.com/Paul-Sutliff/e/B00HEUCHRI

 

About Paul Sutliff from Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad homepage:

 

BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, currently a post-graduate student at Henley-Putnam University.

 

If you want a copy of my book, contact me on LinkedIn or here and I will send you one for $15 plus shipping.

State Department Waging “Open War” on White House


Either Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is working against the Trump agenda or he is not competent enough to drain the State Department Obama hold-over swamp. I believe it is the former more than the latter. Either way, President Trump needs to fire Tillerson and get a Secretary of State that can competently execute the Trump agenda in foreign policy. ESPECIALLY as pertaining to Israel!

 

JRH 9/18/17

Please Support NCCR

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

State Department Waging “Open War” on White House

 

By Soeren Kern

September 17, 2017 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • “It’s not clear to me why the Secretary of State wishes to at once usurp the powers of the Congress and then to derail his boss’s rapprochement with the Israeli government.” — Foreign policy operative, quoted in theWashington Free Beacon.

 

  • Since he was sworn in as Secretary of State on February 1, Rex Tillerson and his advisors at the State Department have made a number of statements and policy decisions that contradict President Trump’s key campaign promises on foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Iran.

 

  • “Tillerson was supposed to clean house, but he left half of them in place and he hid the other half in powerful positions all over the building. These are career staffers committed to preventing Trump from reversing what they created.” — Veteran foreign policy analyst, quoted in the Free Beacon.

 

The U.S. State Department has backed away from a demand that Israel return $75 million in military aid which was allocated to it by the U.S. Congress.

 

The repayment demand, championed by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, was described as an underhanded attempt by the State Department to derail a campaign pledge by U.S. President Donald J. Trump to improve relations with the Jewish state.

 

The dispute is the just the latest example of what appears to be a growing power struggle between the State Department and the White House over the future direction of American foreign policy.

 

The controversy goes back to the Obama administration’s September 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel, which pledged $38 billion in military assistance to Jerusalem over the next decade. The MOU expressly prohibits Israel from requesting additional financial aid from Congress.

 

Congressional leaders, who said the MOU violates the constitutional right of lawmakers to allocate U.S. aid, awarded Israel an additional $75 million in assistance in the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017.

 

Tillerson had argued that Israel should return the $75 million in order to stay within the limits established by the Obama administration. The effort provoked a strong reaction from Congress, which apparently prompted Tillerson to back down.

 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) “strongly warned the State Department that such action would be unwise and invite unwanted conflict with Israel,” according to the Washington Free Beacon.

 

Speaking to the Washington Examiner, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) added:

 

“As Iran works to surround Israel on every border, and Hezbollah and Hamas rearm, we must work to strengthen our alliance with Israel, not strain it. Congress has the right to allocate money as it deems necessary, and security assistance to Israel is a top priority. Congress is ready to ensure Israel receives the assistance it needs to defend its citizens.”

 

A veteran congressional advisor told the Free Beacon:

 

“This is a transparent attempt by career staffers in the State Department to f*ck with the Israelis and derail the efforts of Congressional Republicans and President Trump to rebuild the US-Israel relationship. There’s no reason to push for the Israelis to return the money, unless you’re trying to drive a wedge between Israel and Congress, which is exactly what this is. It won’t work.”

 

Another foreign policy operative said: “It’s not clear to me why the Secretary of State wishes to at once usurp the powers of the Congress and then to derail his boss’s rapprochement with the Israeli government.”

 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (left) and President Donald J. Trump (right) on February 1, 2017. (Image source: Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)

 

Since he was sworn in as Secretary of State on February 1, Tillerson and his advisors at the State Department have made a number of statements and policy decisions that contradict Trump’s key campaign promises on foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Iran.

 

August 10. The State Department hosted representatives of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), an umbrella group established by the Muslim Brotherhood with the aim of mainstreaming political Islam in the United States. Behind closed doors, they reportedly discussed what they said was Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and the removal of all Israeli control of the Temple Mount and holy areas of Jerusalem. Observers said the meeting was part of larger effort by anti-Israel organizations to drive a wedge between the Trump administration and Israel. The USCMO includes a number of organizations, including American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), which promote “extreme anti-Israel views” and “anti-Zionist” propaganda, and which support boycotts of the Jewish state.

 

July 19. The State Department’s new “Country Reports on Terrorism 2016” blamed Israel for Palestinian Arab terrorism against Jews. It attributed Palestinian violence to: “lack of hope in achieving statehood;” “Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank;” “settler violence;” and “the perception that the Israeli government was changing the status quo on the Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount.” The report also characterized Palestinian Authority payments to the families of so-called martyrs as “financial packages to Palestinian security prisoners…to reintegrate them into society.”

 

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) called on the State Department to hold the PA accountable in State Department Country reports: “The State Department report includes multiple findings that are both inaccurate and harmful to combating Palestinian terrorism…. At the highest level, the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership incites, rewards, and, in some cases, carries out terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis. In order to effectively combat terrorism, it is imperative that the United States accurately characterize its root cause — PA leadership.”

 

June 14. Tillerson voiced opposition to designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, saying that such a classification would complicate Washington’s relations in the Middle East. During his confirmation hearings on January 11, by contrast, Tillerson lumped the Brotherhood with al-Qaeda when talking about militant threats in the region. He said:

 

“Eliminating ISIS would be the first step in disrupting the capabilities of other groups and individuals committed to striking our homeland and our allies. The demise of ISIS would also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran.”

 

June 13. During testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tillerson said he had received reassurances from President Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinian Authority would end the practice of paying a monthly stipend to the families of suicide bombers and other attackers, commonly referred to by Palestinians as martyrs. One day later, Palestinian officials contradicted Tillerson, saying that there are no plans to stop payments to families of Palestinians killed or wounded carrying out attacks against Israelis.

 

May 22. Tillerson sidestepped questions on whether the Western Wall is part of Israel, while telling reporters aboard Air Force One they were heading to “Tel Aviv, home of Judaism.” Asked directly whether he considers the Western Wall under Israeli sovereignty, Tillerson replied: “The wall is part of Jerusalem.”

 

May 15. In an interview with Meet the Press, Tillerson appeared publicly to renege on Trump’s campaign promise to move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem:

 

“The president, I think rightly, has taken a very deliberative approach to understanding the issue itself, listening to input from all interested parties in the region, and understanding what such a move, in the context of a peace initiative, what impact would such a move have.”

 

Tillerson also appeared to equate the State of Israel and the Palestinians:

 

“As you know, the president has recently expressed his view that he wants to put a lot of effort into seeing if we cannot advance a peace initiative between Israel and Palestine. And so I think in large measure the president is being very careful to understand how such a decision would impact a peace process.”

 

Critics of this stance have argued that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would, instead, advance the peace process by “shattering the Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.”

 

March 8. The State Department confirmed that the Obama administration’s $221 million payment to the Palestinian Authority, approved just hours before Trump’s inauguration, had reached its destination. The Trump administration initially had vowed to freeze the payment.

 

In July 2017, the Free Beacon reported that Tillerson’s State Department was waging an “open political war” with the White House on a range of key issues, including the U.S.-Israel relationship, the Iran portfolio, and other matters:

 

“The tensions have fueled an outstanding power battle between the West Wing and State Department that has handicapped the administration and resulted in scores of open positions failing to be filled with Trump confidantes. This has allowed former Obama administration appointees still at the State Department to continue running the show and formulating policy, where they have increasingly clashed with the White House’s own agenda.”

 

A veteran foreign policy analyst interviewed by the Free Beacon laid the blame squarely on Tillerson:

 

“Foggy Bottom [a metonym for the State Department] is still run by the same people who designed and implemented Obama’s Middle East agenda. Tillerson was supposed to clean house, but he left half of them in place and he hid the other half in powerful positions all over the building. These are career staffers committed to preventing Trump from reversing what they created.”

 

Notable holdovers from the Obama administration are now driving the State Department’s Iran policy:

 

Michael Ratney, a top advisor to former Secretary of State John Kerry on Syria policy. Under the Trump administration, Ratney’s role at the State Department has been expanded to include Israel and Palestine issues. Ratney, who was the U.S. Consul in Jerusalem between 2012 and 2015, oversaw $465,000 in U.S. grants to wage a smear to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from office in 2015 parliamentary elections, according to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Ratney admitted to Senate investigators that he deleted emails containing information about the Obama administration’s relationship with the group.

 

Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., a career foreign service officer who serves as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Shannon, the State Department’s fourth-ranking official, has warned that scrapping the Iran deal would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. “Any effort to step away from the deal would reopen a Pandora’s box in that region that would be hard to close again,” he said. His statement indicates that Shannon could be expected to lead efforts to resist any attempts to renege or renegotiate the deal; critics of the deal say that Iran’s continued missile testing has given Trump one more reason to tear up his predecessor’s deal with the Islamist regime.

 

Chris Backemeyer is now the highest-ranking official at the State Department for Iran policy. During the Obama administration, Backemeyer made his career by selling the Iran deal by persuading multinational corporations to do business with Iran as part of an effort to conclude the Iran nuclear deal.

 

Ratney, Shannon and Backemeyer, along with Tillerson, reportedly prevailed upon Trump twice to recertify the Iran nuclear deal. The Jerusalem Post explained:

 

Washington was briefly abuzz on the afternoon of July 17 when rumors began to circulate that President Trump was eager to declare that Iran was in breach of the conditions laid out in the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA).

 

Those receptive antennas were further heightened given the previous signals sent. After all, the State Department already released talking points to reporters on the decision to recertify Iran. The Treasury Department also had a package of fresh sanctions on over a dozen Iranian individuals and entities ready to announce to appease the hawks who were eager to cut loose from the deal.

 

But Trump didn’t want to recertify Iran, nor did he want to the last time around in April. That evening, a longtime Middle East analyst close to senior White House officials involved in the discussions described the scene to me: “Tillerson essentially told the president, ‘we just aren’t ready with our allies to decertify.’ The president retorted, ‘Isn’t it your job to get our allies ready?’ to which Tillerson said, ‘Sorry sir, we’re just not ready.'” According to this source, Secretary Tillerson pulled the same maneuver when it came to recertification in April by waiting until the last minute before finally admitting the State Department wasn’t ready. On both occasions he simply offered something to the effect of, “We’ll get ’em next time.”

 

______________________

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

 

Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook

 

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

[Blog Editor: Unfortunately, I did not wait to get permission. You may wish to get permission to use any portion of this GI cross post.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the transparency and accountability of international organizations.

 

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support. Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.

 

Ambassador John R. Bolton, Chairman

 

Nina Rosenwald, President


Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President