The Muslim Brotherhood

1. Shariah places great importance on an “Information War,” a “Civilization Jihad” against the USA, featuring political and psychological warfare via an international group of Islamists known as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan).

2. The MB uses non-violent, stealthy techniques to establish relations with, influence and, wherever possible, penetrate a government’s circles in executive and legislative branches at the federal, state and local levels; the law enforcement communities; intelligence agencies; the military; penal institutions; the media; think tanks and policy groups; academic institutions; non-Muslim religious communities; and other elites; all to destroy a country and then establish shariah.

3. The MB is the leader of the Islamic Movement throughout the world; and is by far the strongest and most organized.

4. The MB’s “Civilization-Jihadist Process” is primarily conducted by groups posing as peaceable, “moderate” and law-abiding Muslim community organizations; while, behind-the-scenes, its mission is sedition in the furtherance of shariah’s supremacist agenda.

5. The Ikhwan’s objective is a kind of grand jihad to eliminate and destroy our 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 (Allah's) religion is made victorious over all other religions.

6. They co-opt our leadership into believing a counterfactual understanding of Islam and the nature of the MB, and then coerce these leaders to enforce the MB narrative on their subordinates, with the end result being world-wide shariah, and the re-establishment of the global Islamic caliphate.

7. Nearly every major Muslim organization in the USA is actually controlled by the MB or a derivative organization.

8. Most Muslim-American groups of any prominence are factually hostile to the United States and its Constitution.

9. BH creed: “God (Allah) is our objective, the Koran is our law, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” As evidenced from the Creed, the MB is the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today.

10. The Muslim Students Assn (MSN), is a front organization created by the Ikhwan with many college chapters throughout the USA; some serving as recruiting nodes for the MB and others for violent jihadist organizations. Initially, MSA chapters presented Islam in public as an acceptable alternative to other religions, never mentioning its revolutionary aspects. MSA members are becoming more aggressive in demands for accommodations and silencing all opposition.

11. The Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘ Phased Plan’

Phase One: Inject BH members into positions of leadership using discreet and secret methods.

Phase Two: Expand Islam’s image on the public scene, infiltrate Government, befriend religious institutions and senior scholars, gain public support and sympathy, and establish a shadow government (secret) within the Government.

Phase Three: Escalate conflict and confrontation with the rulers via mass media. Currently in progress.

Phase Four: Initiate open public confrontation with Government through political pressure. Begin aggressive implementation of Phase Three. Begin training in use of weapons in anticipation of zero-hour.

Phase Five: Seize power, establish the Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.

12. The Implementation of Shariah by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Elbarasse archives* and close observation of the Brotherhood’s operations reveal the following as the most important of the techniques employed by the Ikhwan in America to achieve the seditious goals of its civilization jihad:

a. Expanding the Muslim presence by birth rate, immigration, and refusal to assimilate;

b. Occupying and expanding domination of physical spaces;

c. Ensuring the “Muslim Community” knows and follows MB doctrine;

d. Controlling the language we use in describing the enemy;

e. Ensuring we do not study their doctrine (shariah);

f. Co-opting key leadership;

g. Forcing compliance with shariah at local levels;

h. Fighting all counterterrorism efforts;

i. Subverting religious organizations;

j. Employing lawfare - the offensive use of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits;

k. Claiming victimization / demanding accommodations;

l. Condemning “slander” against Islam;

m. Subverting the U.S. education system, infiltrating and dominating U.S. Middle East studies programs;

m. Demanding the right to practice shariah in segregated Muslim enclaves;

o. Demanding recognition of shariah in non-Muslim spheres;

p. Confronting and denouncing Western society, laws, and traditions; and

q. Demanding that shariah replace Western law.

Note that many of the foregoing techniques entail, in one way or another, influencing and neutralizing the American Government at all levels.

*Elbarasse archives. In August of 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Maryland, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver of the vehicle was identified as Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in Chicago, Illinois in a Hamas case. The FBI’s Washington Field Office raided Elbarasse’s residence in Annandale, Virginia, and in the basement of his home, a hidden sub-basement was found. In the sub-basement, the FBI discovered the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The documents confirmed what investigators and counterterrorism experts had previously suspected and contended about the myriad Muslim-American groups in the United States – namely, that nearly all of them are controlled by the MB and, therefore, as shariah dictates, are hostile to this country, its Constitution and freedoms. The documents make clear their sole objectives are to implement Islamic Law in America in furtherance of re-establishing the global caliphate.

[Source: Shariah The Threat to America (Team B Report; http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20(Team%20B%20Report)%2009142010.pdf)

Waking up to Radical Islam

The following article addresses the issue of America being "asleep" when it comes to the dangers posed by radical Islam and creeping Sharia Law. The highlighting provided by the author.

The original article is posted in HumanEvents at:

[

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39006 ]

Waking Up to Radical Islam

by Brigitte Gabriel (more by this author)

Posted 09/16/2010 ET

In spite of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s recent New York Times op-ed written to calm American concerns about the Ground Zero mosque, as the bright light of public scrutiny shines on this proposed mosque, Americans are discovering elements of radical Islam previously unknown to them.

The controversy has led countless Americans, puzzled and disturbed by the motivation and insensitivity of Imam Rauf and his backers, to begin evaluating the threat of radical Islam beyond the isolated context of terrorism.

Islam’s history has shown, for example, there is powerful symbolism in choosing where to construct mosques. Built on sites of military victories, mosques have traditionally symbolized the triumph and supremacy of Islam over all other religions and people: Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was built on top of Solomon’s Temple; the Umayyad mosque in Damascus is over the church of St. John the Baptist; more than 2,000 mosques are on the footprints of Hindu Temples in India.

While America does not have a religious center per se, in the eyes of radical Islam our “religion” is capitalism and the destruction of the World Trade Center was like the sack of Constantinople.

Does Ground Zero mosque Imam Rauf view his proposed mosque through this lens? Honestly, we can’t know for sure.

But even if he doesn’t, there is no doubt that many in the Muslim world will regard the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero as a tribute to Islamic victory over “infidel” America. Islamist leaders worldwide will employ the symbolism of a mosque at Ground Zero as a recruiting tool to jihad, swelling their ranks and escalating the threat against America.

This debate is forcing the American people to take a long- overdue look at the harsh reality of a political ideology which is in its very nature antithetical to the fundamental values of liberty and justice as practiced in America and Western societies.

People are asking the kinds of questions I had to confront decades ago: What exactly is “sharia law?” Why is there such an increase in homegrown jihadists today than ten or even five years ago? Who are the “moderate” Muslims, and why aren’t they speaking out more aggressively against the “radicals?”

Rauf and his supporters certainly did not anticipate the degree and intensity of the blowback they are getting. On the contrary, he quietly greased the skids for this project, meeting behind the scenes with various elected officials and opinion leaders to get their blessing.

Unfortunately, those he met with failed to do the due diligence that would have exposed his real agenda. They accepted at face value his soothing platitudes of tolerance and interfaith dialogue, platitudes for which he has shown contempt in writings and statements in the Arabic world.

Imam Rauf repeats these platitudes in his lengthy New York Times op-ed, clearly hoping that Americans will believe him. But thanks to probing investigations done by investigative reporters, bloggers and watchdog organizations, a robust debate has surrounded the proposed mosque.

More Americans now know that Rauf, as recently as March, said in Arabic that he opposes interfaith dialogue. They know he is a vocal supporter of sharia law, that he says governments which do not employ sharia law are “unjust” and that he has refused to label Hamas a terrorist organization. They know he has refused to sign the “Freedom Pledge,” issued by Former Muslims United, which pledges to oppose retaliation and punishment toward Muslims who leave Islam. The more Americans learn, the more concerned they become.

As a Lebanese immigrant I am as proud to be an American as at any time since I arrived in this great nation. Grassroots America is rising up in opposition to this symbol of Islamist victory, ignoring the hectoring and name-calling of our politically-correct “elites.”

Undoubtedly there are different reasons for why 70% of Americans oppose the building of the mosque. But whether the motivation is concern for the 9/11 victims or concern about the advance of sharia law that Imam Rauf advocates, the American people are saying “enough is enough.”

That is the only language Islamists understand.

Terrorists are only one manifestation of radical Islam. As Americans look even closer they will come to realize that the same ideology that produces a terrorist also produces a seemingly moderate Muslim who is dedicated to the advancement and imposition of sharia law. They will learn that the Islamist in a suit and tie, who wants to replace the Constitution with sharia law, differs from the terrorist only in the means to the end, not the end itself.


Brigitte Gabriel is an international terrorism analyst and a two-time New York Times best-selling author of Because They Hate and They Must Be Stopped. She is the president of ACT for America.org, the largest national security grassroots movement in the U.S.

Conflict Between Sharia and US State & Federal Laws

The following information has been paraphrased from an article on Sept 21, 2010 by William Kilpatrick called “The Road to Sharia.” He notes that U.S. law already prohibits the free exercise of Islam because it encompasses a complete political, legal, and moral system called “Sharia law.” Devout Muslims believe these laws are divine commandments and must be complied with without question; full practice of Islam requires compliance with them. Problem is, many shariah laws violate state and federal laws.

1. Under shariah law a Muslim girl can be contracted for marriage at any age. The marriage can be consummated when she is eight or nine. The laws of the United States frown upon such arrangements.

2. Under Sharia a man may marry up to four wives (simultaneously). U.S. law prohibits the practice of polygamy.

3. Under Sharia law, a man can easily divorce his wife, but a woman cannot divorce her husband without his consent. U.S. divorce courts don’t see things in quite the same way.

4. Sharia law: Muslim women are forbidden from marrying a non-Muslim. U.S. law: In this, as in so many other respects, Islamic law is null and void. American citizens are free to marry outside their religion.

5. Sharia law: the testimony of a woman in court is worth half the value of a man’s testimony. U.S. law: “Tell it to the judge!”

6. Sharia law: Muslim men have permission to beat their wives for disobedience. U.S. law: In U.S. law this Sharia provision is referred to as “domestic abuse battery.”

7. Sharia law: adultery is punishable by lashing and stoning to death. U.S. law: “Let he who throws the first stone be prepared for life behind bars.”
8. Sharia law: homosexuality is punishable by death. U.S. law: “Abdul, meet your cellmate, Butch.”

9. Sharia law: thieves may be punished with amputation. U.S. law: the Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”

10. Sharia law: a Muslim who rejects Islam must be killed. U.S. law: under U.S. laws this form of Islamic justice is referred to as “first- degree murder.”

11. Sharia law: non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. U.S. law: “all men are created equal.”

12. Sharia law: Sharia law supersedes any system of man-made laws. U.S. law: Article VI. “This Constitution shall be…the supreme law of the land.”

Because of these and other conflicts, the free exercise of Islam is prohibited in America. To allow full practice Islam, the U.S. Constitution and Criminal Code would have to be re-written to make them Sharia compliant. Thus, to allow free exercise of religion for Muslims would necessitate the abrogation of constitutional rights for U.S. citizens—including the right to freedom of religion.

[Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/09/21/the-road-to-sharia/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_campaign=6c58bc156e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email]

Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom

Below is a powerful article that argues that when religious freedom and tolerance accommodates Islam and Sharia law, Islam will end up eradicating that freedom and replacing it with intolerance like that found in Mecca. Mecca once had religious freedom, it doesn't now. The same can be said for other cities and governments that have embraced Islam and Sharia law. Sharia and freedom are incompatible. One cannot exist with the other.

========================================================================

Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom
by Daniel Greenfield, August 14, 2010

At an Iftar dinner in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed that he supports the building of the Ground Zero mosque as part of his "unshakable commitment to religious freedom". Which of course sounds very noble and good, until you ask a single question, Where is the religious freedom in the Muslim world?

Obama has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America's religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion-- Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.

This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo's 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.

Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that "It can't happen here." But the fate of Europe's Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.

Religious freedom requires that the religions which enjoy it, agree to tolerate each other. If they do not, instead of religious freedom, there is a religious war.

Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it's clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don't like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.

The question is do we want to import this into the United States? Because history and current events show that there is no better way to insure the end of religious freedom in the United States, than to introduce Islam into the picture. Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom. And those who fail to learn from that past, will be doomed to repeat it.

Obama attempted to position his remarks as being against religious intolerance, but yet he spoke in defense of religious intolerance. Because what greater act of religious intolerance could there than building a mosque in a place where Muslims had previously murdered 3000 Americans? Nor are such actions unique on the part of Muslims, who have routinely hijacked other people's sacred areas and structures to make a statement about Islamic supremacism. If Islam were truly as tolerant as Obama claims, its adherents would not attempt to build a massive mosque complex that they do not actually need in this place.

And what of the Iftar dinner itself which Obama spoke at. The Iftar dinner is the nightly break in the fast of Ramadan. And what is Ramadan? It commemorates the revelation of the first verses of the Koran to Mohammed. And those first verses of the Koran conclude with, "Guide us the straight way, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)." That same verses appears in the daily prayers of Muslims.

Seen in that light, Ramadan marks the beginning of Islam's intolerance for other religions, as embodied in its scriptures. When Muslims schools teach pupils that Jews are apes and Christians are pigs, they are relying on the wellspring of hate already in the Koran. A non-Muslim country holding an event to mark any aspect of Ramadan is as mad as sheep celebrating their own slaughter.

Let's look at how some of the participants in Obama's Iftar dinner embody that famous Islamic tolerance. There is Hassan Jaber, Executive Director of ACCESS. "ACCESS paid for commercial driving lessons and attempts at hazardous material hauling certificates for two men convicted as part of the Detroit Al-Qaeda sleeper cell. Testimony at their trial revealed that the men planned to bomb the MGM Grand Casino and a host of other prominent US sites." (Debbie Schlussel). Access has funded a conference at which Sami Al Arian, of Islamic Jihad, spoke. There's also Ingrid Mattson, who is against any reform of Islam and places loyalty to Islam before America. There's MPAC's Salam Al Marayat, who has defended Hezbollah who has been described as having "disturbing sympathies for Islamic terrorists". Dalia Mogahed, an apologist for Sharia law and the subjugation of women. And those are only some of the names in attendance.

Finally let's turn to Obama's own enthusiasm for religious freedom. That enthusiasm was markedly absent when Caplin and Drysdalelawyers were intimidating conservative. churches. They even intimidated Jewish non-profit groups who wanted Palin to speak at an Anti-Ahmadinejad rally, by threatening their tax exempt status. Mortimer Caplin was a major supporter of Obama, and part of Obama for America. But Obama was not upset when his supporters were silencing the religious freedom of Christians and Jews.Which suggests that his "Unshakable Commitment to Religious Freedom" is actually rather shaky indeed. And appears to be reserved for Muslims. Which would reaffirm what Obama himself said in his own book; "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction".

His endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is another case of Obama standing "with the Muslims" and against Americans of all other faiths, who want the freedom to practice their religion in peace without harassment, persecution and violence from the followers of Islam, who believe that all other religions are invalid, and that all forms of government and law that are not governed by the Koran, have no right to exist.

Religious Freedom must be defended, from all those who would take it away. The history of Islam is the history of genocide, oppression and ethnic cleansing practiced by Muslims against non-Muslims. Islam is the death blow to religious diversity and freedom. And nowhere better is that seen than Mecca, a city that was once a mecca for different religions, which is now barred to all but Muslims. Mecca is the Muslim ideal. And it exemplifies what they hope to accomplish.

Meanwhile, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, has praised terrorism saying "Allahu Akbar! These are signs of victory: Jihad has remained the only wining card and the light of hope in the hands of those sincere people among the Ummah". He has called Jews "scum of the earth" and "rats of the world", Christians, " cross-worshipers" and filled with "rotten ideas and poisonous culture" and had similarly charming things to say of Hindus. This is how the world looks from Mecca, the heart of Islam. And this is why Islam and religious freedom are incompatible.

Obama concluded his remarks by saying: "And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us." But that is not the rule at the heart of Islam. [NOTE: Instead of the Golden Rule, the Koran says: "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (48:29); AND " Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve." (8.55) AND "The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy." (4:101).] And this is not the first time that he has tried to sell that particular lie. But Islam never equates Muslims with non-Muslims, as Obama pretends it does. Its offer of brotherhood is only open to fellow Muslims. Its tolerance is only for fellow Muslims. And that is at the heart of the problem. And it is why the rise of Islam means the end of liberty and justice for all. To stand for liberty and justice is to take a stand against Islamic bigotry.

Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition

Hmm, the following article suggests that building mosques at other locations throughout the country besides "Ground Zero" in NYC isn't as easy as once thought. There seems to be growing opposition by local population to such buildings. This article highlights this opposition, and even mentions ACT! for America, a national organization dedicated to defending our country against radical Islam and creeping Sharia law.

=========================================================================

Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: August 7, 2010

While a high-profile battle rages over a mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, heated confrontations have also broken out in communities across the country where mosques are proposed for far less hallowed locations.

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., arguments broke out over a planned Muslim center.

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

“What’s different is the heat, the volume, the level of hostility,” said Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky. “It’s one thing to oppose a mosque because traffic might increase, but it’s different when you say these mosques are going to be nurturing terrorist bombers, that Islam is invading, that civilization is being undermined by Muslims.”

Feeding the resistance is a growing cottage industry of authors and bloggers — some of them former Muslims — who are invited to speak at rallies, sell their books and testify in churches. Their message is that Islam is inherently violent and incompatible with America.

But they have not gone unanswered. In each community, interfaith groups led by Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, rabbis and clergy members of other faiths have defended the mosques. Often, they have been slower to organize than the mosque opponents, but their numbers have usually been larger.

The mosque proposed for the site near ground zero in Lower Manhattan cleared a final hurdle last week before the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg hailed the decision with a forceful speech on religious liberty. While an array of religious groups supported the project, opponents included the Anti-Defamation League, an influential Jewish group, and prominent Republicans like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker.

A smaller controversy is occurring in Temecula, about 60 miles north of San Diego, involving a typical stew of religion, politics and anti-immigrant sentiment. A Muslim community has been there for about 12 years and expanded to 150 families who have outgrown their makeshift worship space in a warehouse, said Mahmoud Harmoush, the imam, a lecturer at California State University, San Bernardino. The group wants to build a 25,000-square-foot center, with space for classrooms and a playground, on a lot it bought in 2000.

Mr. Harmoush said the Muslim families had contributed to the local food bank, sent truckloads of supplies to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and participated in music nights and Thanksgiving events with the local interfaith council.

“We do all these activities and nobody notices,” he said. “Now that we have to build our center, everybody jumps to make it an issue.”

Recently, a small group of activists became alarmed about the mosque. Diana Serafin, a grandmother who lost her job in tech support this year, said she reached out to others she knew from attending Tea Party events and anti-immigration rallies. She said they read books by critics of Islam, including former Muslims like Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan and Manoucher Bakh. She also attended a meeting of the local chapter of ACT! for America, a Florida-based group that says its purpose is to defend Western civilization against Islam.

“As a mother and a grandmother, I worry,” Ms. Serafin said. “I learned that in 20 years with the rate of the birth population, we will be overtaken by Islam, and their goal is to get people in Congress and the Supreme Court to see that Shariah is implemented. My children and grandchildren will have to live under that.”

“I do believe everybody has a right to freedom of religion,” she said. “But Islam is not about a religion. It’s a political government, and it’s 100 percent against our Constitution.”

Ms. Serafin was among an estimated 20 to 30 people who turned out to protest the mosque, including some who intentionally took dogs to offend those Muslims who consider dogs to be ritually unclean. But they were outnumbered by at least 75 supporters. The City of Temecula recently postponed a hearing on whether to grant the mosque a permit.

Larry Slusser, a Mormon and the secretary of the Interfaith Council of Murietta and Temecula, went to the protest to support the Muslim group. “I know them,” he said. “They’re good people. They have no ill intent. They’re good Americans. They are leaders in their professions.”

Of the protesters, he said, “they have fear because they don’t know them.”

Religious freedom is also at stake, Mr. Slusser said, adding, “They’re Americans, they deserve to have a place to worship just like everybody else.”

There are about 1,900 mosques in the United States, which run the gamut from makeshift prayer rooms in storefronts and houses to large buildings with adjoining community centers, according to a preliminary survey by Mr. Bagby, who conducted a mosque study 10 years ago and is now undertaking another.

A two-year study by a group of academics on American Muslims and terrorism concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism. The study was conducted by professors with Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina. It disclosed that many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.

Radicalization of alienated Muslim youths is a real threat, Mr. Bagby said. “But the youth we worry about,” he said, “are not the youth that come to the mosque.”

In central Tennessee, the mosque in Murfreesboro is the third one in the last year to encounter resistance. It became a political issue when Republican candidates for governor and Congress declared their opposition. (They were defeated in primary elections on Thursday.)

A group called Former Muslims United put up a billboard saying “Stop the Murfreesboro Mosque.” The group’s president is Nonie Darwish, also the founder of Arabs for Israel, who spoke against Islam in Murfreesboro at a fund-raising dinner for Christians United for Israel, an evangelical organization led by the Rev. John Hagee.

“A mosque is not just a place for worship,” Ms. Darwish said in an interview. “It’s a place where war is started, where commandments to do jihad start, where incitements against non-Muslims occur. It’s a place where ammunition was stored.”

Camie Ayash, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, lamented that people were listening to what she called “total disinformation” on Islam.

She said her group was stunned when what began as one person raising zoning questions about the new mosque evolved into mass protests with marchers waving signs about Shariah.

“A lot of Muslims came to the U.S. because they respect the Constitution,” she said. “There’s no conflict with the U.S. Constitution in Shariah law. If there were, Muslims wouldn’t be living here.”

In Wisconsin, the conflict over the mosque was settled when the Town Executive Council voted unanimously to give the Islamic Society of Sheboygan a permit to use the former health food store as a prayer space.

Dr. Mansoor Mirza, the physician who owns the property, said he was trying to take the long view of the controversy.

“Every new group coming to this country — Jews, Catholics, Irish, Germans, Japanese — has gone through this,” Dr. Mirza said. “Now I think it’s our turn to pay the price, and eventually we will be coming out of this, too.”

[Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1]

What is Radical Islam?

WHAT IS RADICAL ISLAM?

by

Guy Rodgers, Executive Director

ACT! for America

There is no simple or singular way to define or describe “radical Islam.” One person hears the phrase and thinks “terrorism.” Others think “Islamofascism,” “jihad,” “Sharia law,” “Islamic fundamentalism,” “Islamism,” “political Islam,” a struggle against the “infidel,” or simply the “Muslim religion.” Others aren’t sure what to think.

Regardless of the name or adjective, radical Islam is a threat to our national security and our freedoms that must be taken more seriously than it has been to date.

For nearly three years I have immersed myself in a study of radical Islam, Islamic history, and Islamic doctrine. My doing so was not merely as an academic exercise, but, as a long-time political strategist, I set out to understand how our enemies think and why they do what they do, in order to effectively combat them.

What I have learned would stun the average American.

It is typical for people to view something they do not understand through the prism of their own experiences. Most Americans know very little about the history or doctrines of Islam. Thus, they tend to impose their own experiences on what they think a “religion” is or ought to be.

What they don’t understand is that Islam is very different from all other major religions of the world.

Where it is similar is the religious practices of devotion to deity and the obligation to a higher moral law. For instance, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all exhort worship, prayer and fasting.

It is not in these practices that Islam threatens the world. It is the ideology of “political Islam,” most frequently referred to as “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Islamofascism” that is the source of the existential threat to the world.

It is this ideology, enunciated in the Qur’an and Hadith (sayings and traditions of Mohammed), the holy books of Islam, that sets Islam apart from other religions.

The ideology of radical Islam has two key elements.

1. It is a supremacist political ideology that advocates the advance of Islamic Sharia law and the imposition of such law on all people. It is totalitarian and imperialistic.

2. Jihad, or “striving,” is an obligation upon the Muslim “umma” (Muslim community of believers) as a central means of advancing and imposing Islamic Sharia law.

Qur’an 9:5 is one among many Qur’anic passages commonly cited as doctrinal justification for the waging of jihad and the advance of Sharia:

Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Here is what Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi, one of the “fathers” of modern Islamism, had to say about Islam:

Islam is not a normal religion like the other religions in the world…Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man…The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order for Islam to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is jihad. (Jihad in Islam)

Do all Muslims agree with this? Of course not. The fact is most Muslims have never read the Qur’an in their own language, let alone the Hadith. Many who speak Arabic are illiterate and cannot read the Qur’an. Many others practice a more spiritual or cultural Islam. And there are many instances worldwide where Muslims are resisting the imposition of full-blown Sharia law by other Muslims.

In other words, as with any religious system, there are degrees of orthodoxy and devotion, as well as differences in interpretation and application, within Islam.

I recently finished reading Escaping Islam by Mano Bakh. Bakh was a high-ranking naval officer in the Iranian Navy prior to the Islamic revolution in 1979. Raised a Muslim, he recounts how his mother was devout while his father was more of a cultural Muslim.

As a third-year cadet at the Italian Naval Academy (a very prestigious assignment) he was given the assignment of educating the other cadets about Islam. To prepare, he gathered numerous books to obtain the information he needed, because he actually knew very little about Islam.

He writes that the more he learned, the more uncomfortable he became. After reading about the role of jihad and the violence it spawned during the early years of Islam, Bakh writes:

As I digested this information, I was stunned. I quietly closed my book, and contemplated what I had just learned. I felt a deep sadness and I was numb to my surroundings. My confusion knew no bounds as I wondered, “Did my kind and peaceful mother believe in this man [i.e., Mohammed]. How could she? How could I? (p. 73)

Surprising? Not really. How many people in America profess to be Christians yet have never read the Bible all the way through – or even parts of it? As in all religions, those who profess the Islamic faith range from the casual to the committed.

Having said this, the cold reality is that most of the world’s leading Muslim clerics, while they may phrase it differently, share Mawdudi’s exposition of the ultimate objective of what we call “radical Islam” and the means by which it is to be achieved. These leaders are serious students of the holy books of Islam as well as the five schools of Islamic jurisprudence (four Sunni, one Shi’a) that spell out the entirety of Sharia law.

They are likely familiar with these passages from the Hadith, which advocate jihad for all time:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “…jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Antichrist.” (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526: Narrated by Anas ibn Malik).

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Mohammed is His servant and His Apostle…” (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2635: Narrated by Anas ibn Malik).

These leaders, their followers, and the many organizations they have spawned, are “driving the bus” of Islam. As was the case in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Mao’s China, those zealously committed to their ideology set the agenda and the course for their nations. The same is occurring today within Islam on an international scale. It is not the moderates, or the spiritualists, or the cultural Muslims, who are setting the agenda. It is the Islamists.

They have hearkened back to the supremacist political ideology embedded in Islam’s holy books, practiced by Mohammed, the “rightly guided caliphs” who followed him, and the vast majority of the Islamic scholars who developed the five schools of Islamic jurisprudence in the early centuries following the death of Mohammed.

A study of the Qur’an and Hadith reveal hundreds of passages exhorting and commanding Muslims to wage jihad, take plunder and slaves, and impose Sharia law and the jizya (protection tax) on conquered peoples. This is the authority Islamists are citing for the growing militancy and radicalism we see among Muslims throughout the world.

The spreading of Islam by the sword, which by some estimates left 270 million dead and millions more enslaved over the past 14 centuries, is a historical fact that is sanitized from most public school and university textbooks. In the first few centuries after Mohammed, his example was emulated as the justification for jihad and conquest.

With the codification of Islamic Sharia law by the five schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the doctrine of jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims to Islamic law became settled law that has been considered immutable ever since. A Muslim who questions this settled law is at best strongly criticized and at worst regarded as a heretic or an apostate.

Thus, when a moderate Muslim argues against the supremacist political ideology of Islamism and its devotion to Sharia law, Islamic leaders and scholars rebut his arguments by referencing the holy books of Islam and the Islamic schools of jurisprudence and their codification of Islamic law. It is thus unsurprising that very few Muslims are willing to take on the collective leadership of their religion.

The challenge for the West is, therefore, not merely the obliteration of Islamic terrorism. Terrorism is a means, not an end. The end is the imposition of Sharia law on all people, by whatever means necessary.

In other words, if America were to win the “War on Terror”, but lose the struggle against Sharia law, we still lose. This is because Sharia Islamic law as advanced by radical Islam is thoroughly incompatible with Western law as well as the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The imposition of Sharia law is nothing less than the imposition of theological totalitarianism that, among other things, suppresses free speech, eliminates freedom of religion, and oppresses women.

Not surprisingly, the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have refused to sign this UN declaration. This should tell us something.

For instance, you will find this description of the role of women in marriage in the ancient Islamic legal text Fatawa-i-Alamgiri:

Marriage…subjects the wife to the power of restraint (by the husband) and on her it imposes submission to him when summoned to the couch and confers upon him the power of correction when she is disobedient or rebellious…

So what must the West in general, and America in particular, do to combat the threat of radical Islam?

I have concluded that, strategically, successfully resisting the advance of radical Islam will require us to do exactly what Osama bin Laden once said – show the world who the strong horse is.

In other words, we must resist the leadership, organizations and the militants who are committed to the ideology of political Islam, the waging of jihad (in all its forms, from violent to cultural), and the forced imposition of Sharia law. This will require more than fighting terrorism. On whatever front Islamists seek to advance this radical ideology, from the halls of academia to the courts of justice, we must resist and push back.

What’s more, we must be willing to unashamedly proclaim that the values of Western Civilization have, on balance, given the world its greatest opportunities for freedom, prosperity, and opportunity. It is the very self-loathing of Western Civilization, and the politically correct propensity to blame the West for all the ills of the world, that has enabled Islamism to gain such a foothold in Europe, the UK, Canada, and increasingly in America.

Organized resistance has stopped the advance of radical Islam in the past. Organized resistance can stop it again. Doing so is not only an imperative for the freedom and security of the West, it will be beneficial to Muslims everywhere who, for whatever reason, do not subscribe to the ideology of political Islam, the waging of jihad, and the imposition of Sharia law.

Americans must rise up and demand that our culture unshackle itself from the political correctness so clearly embodied in the Pentagon report on the Ft. Hood massacre, which did not make a single reference to “radical Islam,” “jihad,” or “Islamism” anywhere in the body of the report.

We must rise up and affirm that tolerance of an intolerant, supremacist political ideology is no more acceptable when the name was Nazism than when the name is Islamism. As Lee Harris notes so well in his book The Suicide of Reason, the tolerance of Islamist intolerance is not tolerance but cultural suicide.

This is why ACT! for America was founded by Brigitte Gabriel. This is why ACT! for America exists. This is its mission. All freedom-loving people, regardless of political party, ethnicity, color or creed, are invited to join us in this resistance to radical Islam.

CAIR's Smear Job Against Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! for America

CAIR’s Smear Job Against Brigitte Gabriel

Posted by Jamie Glazov on Mar 19th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Email him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Brigitte Gabriel, founder of the nonprofit organization ACT! for America, and one of the leading terrorism experts in the world. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders. She has addressed the Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others. She is the New York Times best selling author of Because They Hate and They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.

FP: Brigitte Gabriel, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about CAIR’s personal attack on you. Tell us about it.

Gabriel: CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sent out a press release on March 17^th, using its standard propaganda techniques such as name calling, which I won’t dignify by repeating here. This is not the first time that CAIR has attacked me. But in this case, CAIR’s attack could best be described as “throwing the kitchen sink” at me. It was a litany of accusations and references to statements I have allegedly made, or statements that were taken out of context, pieced together to create a distorted caricature of what I believe and how I define the threat of radical Islam.

FP: Why do you think CAIR did this?

Gabriel: It seems clear to me that CAIR is becoming increasingly desperate in its efforts to try to stop the truth about radical Islam from reaching the American people. It’s almost like they’re flailing, like a drowning man desperately trying to stay afloat. They have lost every court battle thus far in their fight against the authors of the blockbuster exposé Muslim Mafia. The Department of Justice has reaffirmed its finding that CAIR is tied to the terrorist organization Hamas, and a grand jury subpoena for CAIR records issued last November indicates a new government investigation of CAIR is ongoing.

Desperate organizations, like desperate people, are prone to do desperate things. CAIR is desperately trying to divert attention from its own problems, and they are many, by slinging mud at others – and not just me.

FP: I noticed that one of the sources CAIR quotes is the Australian Jewish News. Could you tell us about that particular interview?

Gabriel: This is one of the areas CAIR honed in on. Back in 2007 I was in Australia to speak at a major event honoring Prime Minister John Howard. While there I met with a Jewish journalist who brought along a friend, and we had coffee. The “friend” turned out to be an apologist for anything Islamic, including the Palestinians against Israel. He was so ignorant of the issues of terrorism that he didn’t even know what Hamas was. He was so uninformed that the journalist sitting next to me told him, “You are an embarrassment to journalism.” The man who invited him apologized to me in the car for his friend’s behavior and told me that he will never invite him again to a press conference. This person was a regular at the Islamic Mosque and was very close friends with the Imam and members of the mosque. He ended up writing a blog that badly distorted things I said in the conversation.

CAIR has since been quoting this blog to falsely allege things that I don’t believe. For instance, I don’t believe that there are no moderate Muslims. Of course there are.

FP: You have made statements about “practicing Muslims.” Tell us precisely what you mean in these statements.

Gabriel: When I have made statements about “practicing Muslims,” here is what I’m saying:

In any religious faith, and that includes Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, there are people who are very orthodox and very devout, and then there are others who are less so. There are Christians who read their Bibles, attend church regularly and pray every day, and there are those who don’t. The same dynamic is true in Judaism.

And the same is true in Islam. There are many, many Muslims who have never read the Koran in their own language, who don’t even know many of its teachings or closely adhere to its teachings and those of the Hadith, and who don’t pray five times a day. These are the Muslims who are often described as “moderate,” or less devout, or even “secular.”

Then there are those Muslims who take the Koran and Hadith very seriously. They follow the Islamic shariah law and they subscribe to the supremacist political ideology embedded within the Islamic holy books. They aspire to emulate Mohammed, who any honest historian will tell you spread Islam by terror and the sword. They agree with the doctrine of jihad. They believe that Islamic shariah law should reign supreme over all and that man-made laws are invalid. They agree with the Islamic command that their allegiance is to the “ummah”, the Islamic nation, rather than to any country.

It is these Muslims, who are typically referred to as practicing “radical Islam,” that I refer to when I say such Muslims cannot be trusted to be a loyal citizen to our country – or any country for that matter – and who do not acknowledge that here in America we recognize the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.” It is these Muslims I have referred to as “practicing.”

Just look at what Imam Al-Awlaki, the American Al-Qaida leader in the Arabian Peninsula, said just last week: ”I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim.”

As you can see, this explanation does not lend itself well to a 20 second sound bite. So it’s easy for Islamists and their apologists to lift one sentence out of context to lead people to conclude something that I’m not saying. And they don’t do it just to me – they do it to anyone who they perceive as a threat to their ideological agenda.

FP: For real.

Even more interesting: isn’t it true that CAIR leaders have made public statements that actually confirm what it is you’re saying?

Gabriel: That’s the delicious irony of all of this. CAIR’s press release criticized me for my statements about how radical Muslims cannot be trusted to be loyal citizens. Yet public statements by some of their own leaders confirm what I’m saying.

For instance, Omar Ahmad, the founder of CAIR, made this statement in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.” This was reported in the San Ramon Valley Herald on July 4, 1998. Look what Ahmad is saying – he wants an Islamic theocracy in America. How is this any different from my position that says there are those Muslims who believe that Islamic shariah law should reign supreme and that man-made laws are invalid?

Then there’s Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Communications Director, who said in a 1993 Minneapolis Star Tribune interview, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…”

If that sounds to you like he wants an Islamic theocracy in America where Islamic shariah law reigns supreme, you’re right.

Which begs this question: Can Omar Ahmad and Ibrahim Hooper be counted on to be loyal citizens of the United States and to the Constitution, our law of the land?

FP: This is the question that many people are afraid to answer.

So what do we conclude from all of this?

Gabriel: Everywhere I go I make the point of saying just what I said earlier, that there are many, many Muslims worldwide who either don’t know, don’t understand, or don’t subscribe to the ideology of political Islam, the doctrine of jihad, and the supremacy of Islamic shariah law. Of course, we have no idea how many people make up this group.

But ultimately, that’s not the issue. The issue is the radical, passionate Islamists worldwide who are driving the militant Islamic agenda in the world. Read the words of the revered and respected Muslim clerics worldwide. They are committed to supremacy, jihad, and Islamic shariah law. This is what drives the terrorists and those devoted to “stealth jihad.” It doesn’t matter if even most Muslims don’t think this way, because as history teaches us, the “moderate” element within a movement don’t drive the agenda. Most Germans during World War II weren’t committed Nazis, but that didn’t prevent Nazism from leading to the deaths of 60 million people. The same can be said for the Communists in the Soviet Union and the followers of Mao in China.

FP: Words of wisdom.

So before we go, a final thought?

Gabriel: Thanks Jamie.

A final thought?

Well, let’s face the truth of the dire situation we are facing: Islamists are intent on doing us harm, either through violent jihad or stealth and cultural jihad. They are driven by their commitment to the ideology of political Islam, the doctrine of jihad, the supremacy of Islamic shariah law over all other law, and their allegiance to the ummah rather than any one country. They see this as a state of war between Islam and the “infidel” world, and the practice of everything from deception (taqiyya) to violence is acceptable for their use in fighting this war. That includes the propaganda techniques employed by organizations like CAIR. Understanding all of this is essential to understanding how our enemies think and why they do what they do – and what we must do to defeat them.

FP: Brigitte Gabriel, as always it was an honor and privilege to speak to you. Thank you for your courage and nobility. Thank you for your fearless fight for liberty and the truth. The world doesn’t make many people like you.

•