Non Violent jihad can be more harmful to
our constitutional Republic than violent jihad.
Introduction and Summary
Non-violent Islamist jihad can eradicate our way of life and replace it with something quite different. An article titled Jihadist Ideology: The Core Texts, written by Dr. Sebastian Gorka*, is summarized in this paragraph.
I am not afraid of another 9/11. Rather, I am afraid of AQ’s soft jihadist colleagues, those who will not use violence, but organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), who use legal tools, economic tools, and lawfare–law as a weapon–to undermine our constitutional order. That is by far the more difficult threat for us to deal with because our national security establishment is not geared towards this indirect sort of warfare and because we have not yet woken up to the seriousness of this threat. But we have to remember one thing, and this is my fourth point. Both bin Laden, both AQ and organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have the same objective. They simply use different tools to arrive there. They both wish sharia compliance on the United States, a wiping away of the U.S. Constitution and the creation of a global Caliphate. They are on the same team; they simply use different tools to win their fight. [Emphasis added.]
The Muslim Brotherhood and President Obama
We hear a lot about violent jihad. It is bad and may well get worse. The Muslim Brotherhood has long supported it and President Obama has a strange love affair with it. One of His brothers, Malik Obama, does much to finance it.
Malik Obama, holding picture with Brother Barrack Hussein
[Stolen from Counter Jihad Report]
If you favor Islamism, you cannot be accused of Islamophobia, a U.S.-sponsored movement except for the extremists of al-Qaida. Not liberals or real pro-democrats or conservative traditionalists or nationalists or communal nationalists, but Islamists.
That also means that non-Islamists can also be the enemy in Western eyes. Moderates are actually less desirable friends to terrorists and extremists. The West seems to view its three main threats as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel; its three main friends as Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Syrian Islamist rebels. [Emphasis added.]
Consider this: In Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Turkey, and other countries, Western powers and especially America were seen to be behind Islamist governments. And in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and even Iran, they were portrayed in this way with perhaps somewhat less justice. But here is the bottom line: The overwhelming majority of Arab governments and the Turkish-Iranian democratic opposition had many reasons to think that the Western countries, and especially the United States, were actually supporting their Islamist foes. In 2013, that view became even more accurate. [Emphasis added.]
It should be understood in the current regional picture that the Western world, and especially the Obama Administration, have taken the Islamists’ side in the battle between these forces. [Emphasis added.]
Does President Obama simply reject the principles upon which our constitutional Republic — of which He was mistakenly elected the President — was founded or does he not even have a clue about foreign policy and/or what is and what is not in our national interest? I don’t know but it’s bad whatever it may be; no improvement appears to be in sight.
As noted at Asylum Watch, after a lengthy discourse on President Obama and possible Islamist tendencies,
If these stories capture the attention of the media, the President may want the White House to lay-in a large supply of paper towels to wipe away the egg from his face every other day. Although, I’m not sure that President Obama is much concerned about his legacy in the classical way of his predecessors. In my opinion, the only thing Barack Obama wants to be remembered for is that he was the man who “fundamentally transformed” America. Of course, “fundamentally transformed” is Obamaspeak for “ruined”. Unfortunately, I believe Mr. Obama has a pretty good shot at achieving his goal.
The nation is not so much divided by “wars” between the rich and poor, men and women, or white and non-white. Instead, there is the world of reality versus that of triviality.
Please read his entire article.
When (and if) President Obama leaves office in 2017 and President Clinton takes over, perhaps her charming long time Islamic assistant, Huma Abedin, can become her Secretary of State and they can work together to continue
sucking up to helping to advance the Religion of Peace. But if we want to be considered tolerant we mustn’t talk about that. Ms. Clinton, no less devious than President Obama, can out-Obama Him in spades, even if she occasionally seems to have an inkling of what she is doing and why
As the Muslim Brotherhood slaughters Christians and other non-Islamists in Egypt, President Obama remains silent about it.
It’s Sunny at the White House! But not in Egypt, if you are a Christian or a Franciscan nun. All over the country, Christian churches are being burned, Christians murdered, and nuns paraded in the streets as “prisoners of war.”The “war”: this can only mean a war of Islam vs. Christianity, right? What other “war” could they be prisoners of? (Their words, not mine.) The Muslim Brotherhood and their thug adherents are conducting a war of genocide against Christians, trying to erase the Copts – one of the oldest Christian groups in the world – from the land.
Once upon a time in America, the American president would have stood before the world, over and over again, and provided a moral counterweight to this evil. The great figures of the 20th Century became great by denouncing evil and condemning genocidal and religious persecution: Reagan, Churchill, Wojtyla.
But Obama is no Wojtyla. He has remained nearly silent on the Muslim Brotherhood’s bloody war on Egypt’s Christians. The martyrs pile up; he plays golf.
The thugs rampaging through Egyptian churches, you see, are Obama’s thugs. He destabilized Egypt by giving the green light to Hosni Mubarak’s fall. After all, Mubarak was an American stooge, a puppet, a toy of imperial America and all that left-wing drool Obama has subscribed to since he was writing articles in college denouncing the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe. Now his thugs rampage through holy places, destroying.
“Moderate” Islamists in the United States are becoming embarrassed about that sort of thing:
Muslim organizations in America are embarrassed by what is happening in the Middle East and how sharia is being exposed for what it is. Their claims that sharia is harmless and that Islam is a religion of peace are no longer credible when Americans see Christians being slaughtered, their churches burning, all in the name of Islam.
The solution for this embarrassment is Islamic distraction and agitation inside America. And the best way to do that is by claiming victimhood to change the subject. It is no coincidence that an Islamist group (AMPAC) is planning an Islamic million man march in Washington DC on 9/11/13 to protest against discrimination against Muslims. There is a saying in the Muslim world: when you are caught in wrongdoing, claim victimhood. AMPAC in their announcement for the march asked with a straight face why Americans are terrified of Islam.
The true purpose of this fake protest over fake discrimination is nothing but the common agitation Islam thrives upon in its never-ending quest for attention, respect and obedience. They are telling Americans ‘How dare you be afraid of us and our wonderful religion and sharia? If you don’t believe that Islam is a religion of peace, then you are oppressive and racists.’ The true purpose of this shameless march is to play with the American psyche and put America on notice of what is to come if Muslim demands are not met. [Emphasis added.]
Violent Islam merely maims and kills our bodies while governmental responses to it diminish our freedoms, and thereby our spirits, better even than violent jihad itself can. Has violent domestic jihad presented a crisis too good to waste but too inconvenient to name? Surely, we can’t offend adherents to the Religion of Peace.
The National Security Agency unlawfully gathered as many as tens of thousands of e-mails and other electronic communications between Americans as part of a now-discontinued collection program, according to a 2011 secret court opinion.
The 86-page opinion, which was declassified by U.S. intelligence officials Wednesday, explains why the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled the collection method unconstitutional.
“For the first time, the government has now advised the court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe,” Judge John D. Bates, then the surveillance court’s chief judge, wrote in his Oct. 3, 2011 opinion.
In the opinion, Bates also expressed deep frustration with the government, saying that it had “disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program” three times in less than three years.
Under the program, the NSA for three years diverted large volumes of international data passing through fiber-optic cables in the United States into a repository where the material could be stored temporarily for processing and for the selection of foreign communications, rather than domestic ones. But in practice, the NSA was unable to filter out the communications between Americans.
According to NSA estimates, the agency may have been collecting as many as 56,000 “wholly domestic” communications each year.
That was back in 2011, so what difference does it make now? NSA can access only seventy-five percent of our domestic internet traffic and has to do it because it’s necessary on account of threats posed by
Islamists ordinary folks intent upon terrorism. Whoops. That should be workplace violence.
Things are crazy in the United States of Bedlam.
Election of Hillary Clinton as “our” next President is unlikely to make things better.
Non-Violent Islamist Jihad
Display in a U.S. elementary school,
The author* of Jihadist Ideology: The Core Texts writes of various Islamist scholars, including Sayyid Qutb, who was dismayed at the lack of morality in the United States when he visited.
On his return to Egypt in 1950, Qutb was energized to reframe Islam as a divinely ordained political movement that must cleanse the world of its current state of jahiliyyah. Now jahiliyyah is an important concept from the beginning of the founding of Islam by Mohammed. Jahiliyyah simply means a state of pagan disbelief. It was used to describe the tribes living around Mecca who worshipped many Gods, who worshipped statues, idols and so forth. Mohammed’s mission was to remove jahiliyyah, this lack of knowledge of the oneness of God, from the Arabia peninsula. Qutb takes this ancient concept of jahiliyyah and says: today the 20th century suffers from jahiliyyah, from confusion, from not understanding the oneness of Allah, that he is supreme, and it is the job of true Muslims to remove this state of pagan ignorance not only from the Middle East but from the whole world as well. Why? Because for Qutb it was not simply a question of unfaithful Arab leaders in the Middle East, but it was also a question of the West culturally invading the Middle East, politically invading the Middle East, putting what he saw as puppets onto the thrones of Arab nations. What we need, according to Qutb, is an enlightened vanguard. This is interesting because he clearly took concepts such as “the vanguard” from Communist ideology. Therefore do not treat the Jihadist ideology as sui generis, something that is unique and by itself. No, writers such as Qutb and even people before him such as Mawdudi in Pakistan (or India as it was), saw the power of other western totalitarian ideologies. It is this ironic absorption of western concepts that otherwise would be deemed to be heretical and anathema into their new religiously framed ideology that makes Islamism a hybrid totalitarianism. Today’s ideology of Global Jihad is therefore not simply a totalitarian man-made construct like Communism or Fascism, but one divinely-framed, and therefore a hybrid concoction. [Emphasis added.]
Concepts key to Qutb’s dozens of books include the idea of global social justice as possible only through Islam: Islam’s mission is to free all men from the tyranny of other men. It is a global and universal mission. What does that mean? It means that humankind must be “liberated” from political systems run by human beings and from laws created by human beings. In other words, Qutb believed human kind must be liberated from systems such as our own here in the United States, with its man-made laws. Democracy is run, as Lincoln told us, by the representatives of the people for the people. Democracy therefore cannot be sharia-compliant, for democracy represents a rejection of Allah’s Koranic law. As a result it must be destroyed. [Emphasis added.]
Abdullah Azzam was an Islamist scholar.
Unlike Qutb, unlike al-Zawahiri, a ministry official and an MD, Azzam had a PhD. from Al Azhar University in Islamic Law. This is very important in the culture of Islam. Do you have theological credentials? When bin Laden issues a fatwa he does not actually have the authority to do so because he is a business graduate. This is not something we think of as a powerful vulnerability, but it is. Abdullah Azzam was one of the ideologues who was truly credentialed to make theological justifications for jihad.
Written by Mohamed over a long period, the Koran has much more or less peaceful language. Mohamed wrote those parts when he was just starting out and had no power. As his successes grew and he became increasingly powerful in a military sense, he wrote the words commanding conquest of non-believers.
Here it is very important to understand the concept of abrogation in the writings of Azzam and many others. This is a core concept in Islam. Azzam’s writings clearly demonstrate how abrogation is used. When you hear people say, “When Bin Laden quotes from the Koran, he is just cherry-picking, he is just picking bits he likes for himself to justify violence. That is not true Islam.” Well, that is not how the Koran works. In truth, the Koran is a very contradictory book. It can say things in one sura, or verse, which are completely opposed in another sura. Islamic Jurisprudence understands that this is a serious problem. How can an eternal, uncreated, holy text contradict itself? The answer that was manufactured to alleviate this potential time-bomb within Islam is abrogation. Behind abrogation is that idea that divine revelation was given to Mohammed in stages, stages reflecting the context in which Mohammed was building his empire and building his religion. So when Mohammed begins to teach about this religion but is still politically weak and not recognized by the tribes in Mecca, and wanted also to win over Jews and Christians, the verses of the Koran are more conciliatory. Then he is invited to Yathrib, to what will be Medina. His message finds fertile ground there, his religious nation begins to grow and he returns in force not just to persuade but to conquer. Then we have the violent Medinan suras, the so-called sword verses:
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Koran, Sura 9.5)
Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Koran,Sura 9.29)
So Mohammed did not advocate violence at the beginning of Islam’s establishment, because by necessity of his position of weakness, he had no other choice. These are the peaceful verses of the Koran. When he finally goes to Yathrib, when he is recognized as a prophet and starts to build a mass-base, he becomes a very powerful military leader and returns to Mecca triumphant. That is when the sword verses are “revealed.” That is when he can talk about violence. The Koran’s eternal truth is thus a victim to Mohammed’s specific context in time. This is how the principle of abrogation was born to explain inherent contradictions in the text. If a verse comes later chronologically in the Koran it supersedes the verse that contradicts it. So when bin Laden quotes later suras, famously violent ones, such as 9.29, it is not because he is being selective. It is because he is reflecting the later truth of Mohammed’s revelation–the later context of power, the use of jihad, the need for violence to spread Islam. And if you understand abrogation you understand how these quotes are used by jihadists today. The fact is that in the evolution of Islam, the later violent years trump the concepts of the weaker early years–permanently. [Emphasis added.]
Islamist are Coming and Bringing Islam
Muslims in foreign lands generally do not integrate well.
Islam is a movement that will return Muslims to the correct path and away from jahiliyyah. The mission “is not to compromise with the practices of a jahiliyyah society or pagan society.” This is important if you think about immigration and the troubles we are seeing in Western Europe. Qutb writes, “We cannot be loyal to a society that suffers from jahiliyyah or paganism. Our aim is first to change ourselves so that we can change society. We will never compromise.” “No political system of earthly power should hinder Islam. If someone does hinder Islam’s spread then it is Islam’s duty to fight that person until he is killed or until he declares his submission.” This is a very important declaration. Hindering Islam could mean anything in practice. It means if anyone prevents Islamic proselytizing, that individual must be fought until he is killed or until he submits to the will of Allah. This is a theme that is echoed in the other ideologues we are going to discuss. Obstructing proselytizing is understood by Qutb and today’s jihadists as the initial aggressive act, one which justifies defensive jihad. [Emphasis added.]
The Islamic immigration invasion in England and Europe seems to be rolling right along.
European native populations are being replaced because many locals, tired of being colonized, flee their countries, cities or neighborhoods.
The proportion of white British Londoners fell drastically from 60 percent in 2001 to 44.9 per cent in 2011, partly due to the arrival of so many foreign nationals and partly to a mass exodus of white Britons. David Goodhart, director of Demos, writes in The Financial Times:
Over the decade between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, the number of white British Londoners fell by more than 600,000 (17 per cent). That is about three times the fall over the previous census period, 1991 to 2001.
“Most of the leading academic geographers did not expect London to become a majority minority city for another 20 or 30 years – they underestimated the extent to which white British people have opted to leave an increasingly diverse London,” says Eric Kaufmann, an academic at Birkbeck College who is leading a project on “white flight” at Demos, the think-tank I lead.
Six hundred thousand is a big city disappearing in just 10 years.
. . . .
What distinguishes invasion from immigration are three things: the volume of people involved in the movement, the span of time and frequency of these movements — the same number of people moving to live in a country over 4 years as opposed to 400 years — and the kind of people, in particular how similar or alien to the natives they are, and how easily or improbably they’ll integrate.
The sheer numbers of people who have come to live in the UK in the last few decades have negatively affected the indigenous population’s quality of life in a serious, profound way, even assuming that those people were all law-abiding, upright citizens, which they are not.
According to this BBC report,
An estimated 85 Sharia councils could be operating in Britain, according to a 2009 report by the think tank Civitas.
Several bodies like the Islamic Sharia Council have seen a large increase in their cases in the past five years.
”Our cases have easily more than tripled over the past three to five years,” says Sheikh al-Haddad.
”On average, every month we can deal with anything from 200 to 300 cases. A few years ago it was just a small fraction of that.
”Muslims are becoming more aligned with their faith and more aware of what we are offering them,” he explained.
The principles of Sharia govern all aspects of a Muslim’s life. It is derived from a combination of sources including the Koran, the Hadith, which is based on the example of the prophet Muhammad, and fatwas, which are rulings of Islamic scholars.
Sharia has been operating in the UK, managed by locally-appointed councils, in parallel to the British legal system since 1982.
But the informal councils have no legal powers and they cannot impose any penalties.
They deal with civil cases alone, but many Muslims are choosing to voluntarily accept rulings made by the scholars.
In the United States, Muslim immigration has doubled since 1992.
That number has doubled since 1992. The immigration origins trajectories have skewed a bit further away from Europe and more toward Asia and Latin America, but Africa is also making its presence known.
They need mosques and they are getting them. This article is about some of them.
Turkey’s Islamist government is constructing a massive $100 million, 15-acre mosque in Lanham, Md., that is expected to “become the largest and most striking example of Islamic architecture in the Western hemisphere” by October 2014.
In May, Turkey Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan placed a ceremonial stone at the construction site. Now the five-building project known as the Turkish American Culture and Civilization Center is well underway in the town just outside Washington, D.C., with a population of about 10,000.
As the Clarion Project explains, mosques have been springing up all over the U.S. in recent years. As many as 80 percent of the mosques in America have been built in the last 12 years – since the 2001 terror attacks.
“A large majority of mosques in the United States are led by Wahhabi clerics,” the Project explains. “Wahhabism is an extreme brand of Islam practiced dominantly in Saudi Arabia. According to Muslim estimates, up to 80 percent of mosques in the U.S. are owned, operated and led by Wahhabis.
“These radical mosques often promote the installation of Sharia law, an extreme ideology that considers ‘non-believers’ to be infidels. According to Wahhabis, jihad or support of jihad is a Muslim duty. They believe that suicide bombers and martyrs are worthy of the highest praise and reward. And radicals are anticipating the day when an Islamic state will one day span the U.S.”
As many as four studies have independently concluded that 80 percent of U.S. mosques “were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians,” Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has reported.
Spencer noted, “We are increasingly seeing Muslim patrols in the proximity of mosques saying to passers-by that they can’t walk a dog, wear a skirt, drink alcohol.”
Please read the rest of the article; it is fascinating.
Images of Democracy can persist even when Freedom vanishes
That has been happening for many years in Venezuela. As noted at the link,
Let’s list a few of the restrictions we suffer [in Venezuela] that do look like those of a more traditional dictatorship. [Insert added.]
As of this week there is basically nothing critical of the regime on TV. And on radio only in some cities. Newspapers and media in general practice a significant amount of self censorship and some news only appear in the Internet. Yes, you can still find criticism but now you must work for it, the masses that satisfy themselves on TV do not get much.
Nobody remembers the last time the state lost a case in the High Court of Venezuela. Suing the state is a waste of time and money unless you need to do so before you can be allowed to reach for international help. Also, winning a case in court against a friend of the regime is an uphill and very expensive battle. Expensive because in the end the winner of the trial is the one that bribes the highest.
Your property is not your property anymore. Once the state decides to expropriate you you have no recourse, your compensation is dictated by the state, not by an independent third party. And that compensation will be payed by the state whenever it pleases it.
You cannot use your property at will. Some items now can be sold or rented only after the state consents, after deciding on the price. Your access to foreign currency is severely restricted, and only if you travel.
You cannot manage your business as you see fit. Not only heavy regulations make it difficult to work but they stimulate extortion from abusive state inspectors. Worse, you cannot let the market decide your selling prices; and in increasing cases you cannot sell it where you want to whom you want even at fixed prices.
For those who must deal regularly with the authorities, roughly half of the time the person that you need to reach, the one with real authority in charge, is military personnel. A large amount of governors and ministers come from the army.
Personality cult is for all to see. Be it the one for Chavez still going on, but there is also an incipient propaganda for Maduro.
Human and civil rights are trampled for some groups. There are political prisoners, a few but mistreated notoriously to set an example. The elected opposition representatives in Parliament are beaten up and insulted as a matter of fact.
Corruption is eating up the country. You need to pay something for almost anything important you need to get done. Obtaining loans from state banks, any business with the state, has a a fixed percentile rate of the deal to be given to the one who signs it. In cash, no trail.
Political segregation is the norm since the Tascon list was set in 2004. Many services now only reach followers of the regime, though badly. Obtaining a public job, a subsidized housing, a scholarship, is obtained only after pledging allegiance to the regime.
And to close a list that can still go on, elections are neither free nor fair anymore. There is clear electoral fraud patterns that are now in the public domain. It starts with the extreme unfairness of an election where the opposition is not allowed to finance itself or communicate its program against a regime that uses all the resources of the state and the media to promote its cause and blackmail voters. And it ends with the dead voting and the end of secret voting.
All of these items taken separately could make the case for a mere authoritarian regime. Taken together they surely indicate a dictatorship.
Might there be some similar events in the United States? In Venezuela, the situation is bad enough to cause writer’s block. Much the same happened in Egypt when now deposed President Morsi was “democratically elected” and soon made a farce of the democratic process.
Islam and non-violent jihad remain nascent in the United States but are growing. If they continue to secure footholds, “we” can make “our” domestic governance equal to and then surpass Venezuela’s state of perpetual clusterdunk and vanishing freedoms. If it is done incrementally we may not notice until it’s too late to stop it.
*Dr. Sebastian Gorka is Military Affairs Fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and member of the Strategic Advisers Group of the U.S. Atlantic Council. Since 9/11 he has trained over 800 counter-terrorism officers from more than 50 nations including Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a former member of the British Territorial Army’s Intelligence & Security Group (22 Coy) and lectures frequently on counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency at such institutions as West Point, Fort Leavenworth’s School of Advanced Military Studies, U.S. Special Operations Command and the National Counter Terrorism Center. Dr. Gorka is co-editor of the newly released Toward a Grand Strategy Against Terrorism (McGraw Hill, 2010). Disclaimer: The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Defense, any U.S. government agency, or the Westminster Institute. The information presented here may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline is requested.