Posts

SEE NO SHARIA: How Our First Lines of Defense Have Been Disarmed

see_no_sharia_thumb-683x1024For much of the past fifteen years, the United States government has failed to understand, let alone decisively defeat, the enemy that, under the banner of its al Qaeda franchise, murderously attacked our country on September 11, 2001.  The reason why that has been so – notwithstanding the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars – has been unclear to most Americans, including some in government.  Until now.

With the publication by the Center for Security Policy of a new book by two of its leaders, President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Vice President Clare Lopez, See No Sharia: “Countering Violent Extremism” and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense, the case has been forcefully made that this sorry state of affairs is a product of a sustained and highly successful influence operation by Islamic supremacists. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Islamists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular have gained access to and considerable sway over policymakers in the White House, the FBI and the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security.

President and CEO Frank Gaffney outlines the failures of the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ program:

See No Sharia describes the trajectory that has flowed from such penetration and subversion.  It traces how fact-based counterterrorism and law enforcement have inexorably been supplanted by an approach defined by accommodations demanded by Islamists – purged lexicons and training programs, limitations on surveillance, case-making and rules of engagement and above all, eschewing anything that gives “offense” to Muslims.

In addition to showing the perils associated with such policies and practices as America faces the growing threat of global jihad and its animating doctrine of sharia, this book provides specific recommendations as to how to restore our first lines of defense – the FBI and other law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, the military and the intelligence community – whose effective service is needed today more than ever.

Frank Gaffney noted,

“Americans expect government officials to fulfill their oaths of office by protecting the Constitution, the Republic it established and its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  The vast majority of our public servants yearn to do their duty. Yet, as See No Sharia makes plain, for at least a decade and a half, they have been obliged to conform to policies that greatly diminish their chances for success.  We simply cannot afford to disarm those in our first lines of defense against Islamic supremacism and its jihad – both the violent kind and the stealthy sort the Muslim Brotherhood calls ‘civilization jihad.’”

Clare Lopez added,

“As a career intelligence professional, the extent to which our policy making apparatus has been penetrated and subverted by Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist operatives is deeply problematic.  This book is meant to expose their handiwork – and to impel the urgently needed and long-overdue policy course-correction.”

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.  “The Gulen Movement: Turkey’s Islamic Supremacist Cult and Its Contribution to Civilization Jihad in America” is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

Click here for a full PDF of the newly released monograph.

Why Resisting Islam [Fitnah] Is Worse Than Slaughter, Part II

The very fact that you are not a Muslim, and don’t want to be, after being called upon [Dawah], makes you unjust and [an] oppressor. This is called Fitnah, and Fitnah is worse than killing. Whenever you criticize Islam on the Net, you are committing Fitnah. Therefore, you are worse than a murderer, and your blood is Halal [Permissible].

A little more than a year ago, I wrote about the subject of Fitnah from an Islamic theological perspective, while pointing out that Fitnah is the Quranic phrase for what has been dubbed Islamophobia in the non-Islamic world.

This time, I would like to discuss the same subject, but from a more secular-political perspective. In other words, does the potent Quranic concept that Fitnah is worse than slaughter, have any application in the secular-political world outside of predominantly Islamic countries?

As you will see, the answer is, plainly, Yes. After reviewing the earlier article on Fitnah, you’ll also see that the bottom line, theologically, is that the serious moral crime of refusing to accept Islam (= Fitnah), is much greater than any possible moral crime involved in the slaughtering (or plundering) of non-Muslims for their unbelief.

Is this counter-intuitive to the non-Islamic (Western) mind? Absolutely. ‘That’s a pretty stark statement,’ you’ll say. Agreed, but it is nonetheless true, as attested by Islamic scholars clear back to the founding of Islam, more than 1,400 years ago. From the very beginning, Mohammed set the example of killing people for the crime of Fitnah, and his example has been followed ever since, often with unfathomable enthusiasm.

For our first example of what Fitnah is worse than slaughter looks like from a non-Islamic perspective (and why it is so important to recognize), let’s examine how the multi-generational theological conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam is described in the non-Islamic media.

In this particular event, the Sunni side was represented by Saudi Arabia, while the Shia side was represented by Iran. On January 20, 2016, the Tribune reported that Saudi Arabia had accused Iran of a nearly four-decade* record of “sedition, unrest and chaos,” and, as the international community tried to calm tensions between the regional rivals, tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran had reached a new high, when Riyadh and a number of its Arab allies cut diplomatic ties with Tehran.

*That is, since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

In turn, Iran responded to the Saudi accusations by saying, “Some in Riyadh not only continue to impede normalisation, but are determined to drag the entire region into confrontation,” and that the Saudi kingdom was “driven by fear that its contrived Iranophobia was crumbling,” and “seems to fear that the removal of the smoke screen of the nuclear issue will expose the real global threat: its active sponsorship of violent extremism.”

Meanwhile, if we look deep inside this smokescreen of secular-political language, we’ll find a cup of hot, concentrated Fitnah, without any sugar.

How so? Because in Arabic, the word for “sedition, unrest and chaos,” as well as for “active sponsorship of violent extremism,” is Fitnah.

In fact, both sides are accusing the other of Fitnah, which, as we’ve already seen, is considered a serious crime, that is, a capital offense. In other words, it is a volatile accusation that can easily erupt into violence and war (which has happened, many times, in the past).

The irony of it all is as thick as cold maple syrup, because Iran and Saudi Arabia are not only accusing each other of exactly the same thing (Fitnah), but are also blinded to the 1,400 year-old cycle of violence they are both trapped in.

Of course, for simply pointing this out (yes, even if it’s true), I am also guilty of Fitnah.

Now, let’s shift gears from the Middle East, and take a look at a few examples of how the Quranic concept that Fitnah is worse than slaughter has found increasingly frequent expression in the secular-political (non-Islamic) world, i.e., in the West.

Once again, we have to keep in mind that in the secular-political (non-Islamic) world, Islamophobia has become the semantic equivalent of Fitnah. Thus, it follows that any form of Islamophobia (i.e., anything seen as critical of Islam, even if it’s true), is now considered a greater threat to the social order, than the acts of violence (either political or actual) that are committed by the followers of Islam.

Why is this important to understand? Because in real time, macro domestic- and foreign policies are being built on this concept. As the following examples will show, we are being subtly coerced (and/or not-so-subtly forced) to submit to this unconstitutional, emerging global social order, on a near-daily basis.

To begin, on June 23, 2015, the Center for Security Policy published the results of a survey on levels of support for Shariah law and Jihad among Muslims in America. The survey revealed that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed,” and that nearly one-fifth of Muslims in America said that the use of violence was justified in order to make Shariah the law of the land in this country.

As may be expected, the survey was widely criticized when it was released, and is still being criticized to this very day. In fact, on March 17, 2016, the NY Times revealed that Frank Gaffney, Founder and President the Center for Security Policy, was part of a “high profile” coalition of experts that would be offering Senator Ted Cruz advice on foreign policy.

In response, the author of the NY Times article stated that “Mr. Cruz is utilizing the same expert that Mr. Trump cited when proposing a moratorium on Muslim immigration last year. Mr. Trump pointed to a Center for Security Policy poll that found a quarter of all Muslims thought that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as a part of global jihad. He was criticized at the time for justifying a controversial policy with a dubious survey.”

However, the survey is neither dubious, or deeply flawed, nor Islamophobic. As I so carefully pointed out in my July 17, 2015 article entitled In Defense of The Center for Security Policy 2015 Poll on American Muslims, “An analysis of 21 surveys conducted over a 10-year period reveals that the spectrum of opinions within the American Muslim community on Shariah law and the use of violence either to punish the enemies of Islam, or to make Shariah the law of the land, are exactly the same as the spectrum of opinions held by Muslims in the rest of the world.

I also added that, “Muslims in America are not an anomaly within the greater Islamic community (Ummah), nor do they depart significantly from the beliefs on Shariah and/or Jihad that are held by Muslims in the rest of the Islamic world. In other words, the CSP survey not only represents the views of Muslims nationwide, but globally as well.”

So, what does this all have to do with Fitnah being worse than slaughter? Evidently, it is now seen a much greater social-political crime (= Fitnah) to have the audacity to publish actual facts about the attitudes and beliefs of Muslims in America (and the world), than it is to (politically) slaughter those who simply point out that a significant portion of U.S. Muslims support the implementation of Shariah law, and the use of violence (Jihad) to do it.

To cite another example of Fitnah being worse than slaughter, on June 21, 2015, Juan Cole wrote an article entitled European Islamophobic Networks influenced Roof to Kill in Charleston.

In the article, Mr. Cole stated, “The Muslim-hatred of the Geert Wilders and Marine LePens in Europe, for which Daniel Pipes, and Pamela Geller, and the whole Islamophobic network are cheerleaders and enablers, was a key influence on Dylann Roof, according to his manifesto. These same hatemongers helped whip Norwegian white supremacist and terrorist Anders Brevik into a homicidal fever pitch in July of 2011, when he killed 77 Norwegians for allegedly being soft on Muslims.”

Dylann Roof killed nine African American Christians (not Muslims), while Anders Behring Brevik killed eight people (not Muslims) with a car bomb, then another 69 young people (not Muslims) at a Workers’ Youth League campground. Despite this, from a social-political perspective, Mr. Cole is slaughtering these European and American “hatemongers” and “Islamophobes,” by emphatically (and publicly) insisting that their intolerable “anti-immigrant, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric” is directly responsible for pressure (Fitnah) within the disenfranchised Islamic community.

Three days after Mr. Cole’s article was published, we saw another horrifying example of Fitnah is worse than slaughter, when it was revealed that police in the U.K had known for five years that grooming gangs had targeted hundreds of Birmingham schoolgirls, all the while choosing not to alert the public.

In addition to highlighting the CSE [Child Sexual Exploitation] problem, the 120-page report, entitled Problem Profile: Operation Protection, which was made public only after a Freedom of Information request, added that “The predominant offender profile of Pakistani Muslim males…combined with the predominant victim profile of white females has the potential to cause significant community tensions. There is a potential for a backlash against the vast majority of law abiding citizens from Asian/Pakistani communities from other members of the community believing their children have been exploited. These factors, combined with an EDL [English Defense League] protest in Dudley in April [2010] and a general election in May could notably increase community tension.”

In other words, since revealing the truth about the CSE problem in Birmingham would have caused “community tensions” (Fitnah) and “backlash against law abiding citizens from the Asian/Pakistani communities,” the police chose instead to keep it secret. In doing so, they slaughtered (at least in a social-political sense), the lives of hundreds of young girls (and boys). Or, as calculated by the Birmingham police department, the Fitnah would have been greater than the slaughter.

To continue, we can also find an example of Fitnah is worse than slaughter in a very recent political event. On March 12, 2016, protesters managed to shut down Donald Trump’s Campaign event in Chicago. As reported in Progress Illinois, the mass protests held against Donald Trump in Chicago late Friday…forced the GOP presidential frontrunner to cancel his planned campaign event at the UIC Pavilion for safety reasons.

Then, after initially declining to criticize Donald Trump’s rhetoric toward the protesters at his rallies, all three of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Gov. John Kasich (R-OH), implied (in carefully qualified statements), that Mr. Trump was at least partly responsible for the outbreaks of violence at his meetings.

Ironically, perhaps their consensus viewpoint was best summed up by Mr. Kasich, whose scheduled MSNBC town hall was also pre-empted by the chaos, when he issued a statement pinning the blame on Mr. Trump himself. “Tonight the seeds of division that Donald Trump has been sowing this whole campaign finally bore fruit, and it was ugly. Some let their opposition to his views slip beyond protest into violence, but we can never let that happen.”

Thus, according to his Republican rivals (not to mention his fiercely implacable Progressive Leftist opponents), it appears that Donald Trump is being held directly responsible for causing Fitnah, right here in America(!), as he campaigns to become President.

Moreover, rather than issuing forceful condemnations of the orchestrated political violence, it appears that Mr. Trump’s socio-political adversaries are more than willing to disregard the courtesies and protections provided by our Founding Fathers in the First Amendment, as they seek to slaughter (i.e., shut down and/or co-opt) the freedoms of expression that our forbears built into the American political process.

At this point, I’m sure the reader could easily cite other examples of how the malevolent Quranic concept of Fitnah is worse than slaughter has already diffused its way into the West (including America), so I will close with a final observation, derived from a recent interview that President Obama gave in the April 2016 issue of the Atlantic Magazine.

During the lengthy (and revealing) conversation, which is entitled, The Obama Doctrine, Unplugged, we learned that Obama believes that a “misplaced word, or a frightened look, or an ill-considered hyperbolic claim, could tip the country into panic,” the sort of panic that would “manifest itself in anti-Muslim xenophobia or in a challenge to American openness and to the constitutional order.”

In addition, we were informed that “Those who speak with Obama about jihadist thought say that he possesses a no-illusions understanding of the forces that drive apocalyptic violence among radical Muslims, but he has been careful about articulating that publicly, out of concern that he will exacerbate anti-Muslim xenophobia.”

This, my friends is a perfect summary of the Quranic concept of Fitnah is worse than slaughter. In his own words, our president tells us that he is less concerned about honestly addressing the threat of Jihad and slaughter, than he is about exacerbating any simmering anti-Muslim xenophobia, which is just a secular-political way of describing Fitnah.

Mr. President, some of us are no longer children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men. Some of us are also very aware that there is a growing threat in this world we live in, and that it has a name.

Pretending that it somehow doesn’t exist, or calling by some other name (xenophobia), or blaming us for being concerned, is not what we elected you to do.

In conclusion, the antidote to the rising political violence and threat of impending class warfare that we keep hearing about is, was, and always will be, Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech is the bubbling peroxide that keeps the wounds of our political disagreements from becoming infected.

In the old days, it was “Come one, come all! Step right up, and have your say!” This invitation included the all-American pledge that I will listen to whatever you have to say (even if I don’t like it), and that you will listen to whatever I have to say (even if you don’t like it).

Today, things are different, and we are faced with uncertainty about the future of our beloved Republic.

If we lose our way, and allow this liberating socio-political contract to be destroyed, then we will inevitably see something like Quran 2.191 play out right in front of us, as our own countrymen become violently animated by the belief that Fitnah is worse than slaughter, as they forcefully insist that the use of intimidation and violence for political gain should override the will of the people, and the Constitution itself.

Believe me, I hope I’m wrong, and I’ll do my part to help keep this from ever happening in America.

However, even in these modern, secular times, it is still true that, Every kingdom that is divided against itself will be destroyed, and every house and city that is divided against itself will not stand.

It is also still true that, No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other.

In Venatus Veritas – In Relentless Pursuit of the Truth

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S., UN-Backed #CVESymposium Exposes Farce of ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Programs

BEWARE ‘DEMOCRACY SPRING’: The proper response to the left’s violent provocations must be zero tolerance

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 2/29/2016 on Muslim “slaughter”

U.S., UK governments knew where girls kidnapped by Boko Haram were, but no one tried to rescue them

As John Kerry declares a ‘Christian Genocide’ in the ME, Muslim leaders label Ted Cruz ‘Islamophobic’

The Council on American Islamic Relations labeling of presidential candidate Ted Cruz and his advisers as “Islamophobic” is ill timed. This declaration comes on the same day as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry declares that the Islamic State is perpetrating a Christian genocide in the Middle East.

Secretary of State Kerry asserted:

In my judgment, Daesh [the Islamic State] is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions — in what it says, what it believes, and what it does.” This official American genocide designation is a critically important step. Genocide is internationally recognized as the most heinous human-rights offense. Legally, it is known as the “crime of crimes.

And while the Genocide Convention does not prescribe specific action to “prevent and protect” against genocide, the conscience does.

So, is Senator Cruz “Islamophobic” given this statement about the Islamic State? According to the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) National Executive Director Nihad Awad, he is.

Awad said:

“Who a candidate picks for his or her advisers says volumes about that candidate’s worldview. By choosing infamous Islamophobes as foreign policy advisers, Senator Cruz indicates that he subscribes to their conspiratorial worldview and to the anti-Muslim bigotry that would inevitably shape their policy recommendations. We ask Senator Cruz to drop any adviser who has a past history of promoting conspiracy theories or religious bigotry.

Awad objects to Senator Cruz having on his advisory team two men: Frank Gaffney and Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, U.S. Army (Ret.). Mr. Gaffney is is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The Center is a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 1988. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin is serves as Family Research Council’s Executive Vice President. He was one of the original members of the U.S. Army’s Delta Force. He commanded SOF Delta in combat operations. Boykin commanded all the Army’s Green Berets as well as the Special Warfare Center and School. Boykin spent 36 years in the army, serving his last four years as the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He is an ordained minister.

Awad on MSNBC’s Chris Matthews show has referred to Gaffney as “one of the country’s leading anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists.”

Interestingly, according to Discover the Networks, Nihad Awad is a supporter of Hamas, he rejects Israel’s right to exist, he suggested that Israel and Egypt played a part in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he maintains that “many Presidents” of the United States “are servants to Israel” and to “the political authority of Jewish interests” and claims that America bore some of the blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Who is the real conspiracy theorist?

Awad is a Muslim migrant who was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Amman, Jordan. Awad came to America via “the Bosnian Refugee Committee—an Islamic aid organization based in Minnesota—Awad in late 1992 spent a month in war-torn Bosnia during a time when Muslim intransigents from around the world were flocking there to wage jihad.”

It appears Awad is continuing to wage Jihad, but this time with attacks against Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

VIDEO: ‘Freedom Isn’t Free’ Security Briefing

The Hausman Memorial Speaker Series is proud to host three extraordinary individuals for the “Freedom Isn’t Free” Security Briefing, at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, MA.

Frank Gaffney, president and founder of The Center for Security Policy, Clare Lopez, former CIA operations officer and current VP of Research and Analysis at The Center, and Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, former Commander of the USN Pacific Fleet and current President and CEO of Lions Associates LLC offer their insights on topics including jihad, the Islamic State and the dangers and consequences of a bad Iranian nuclear deal.

This straight forward presentation will undoubtedly reveal aspects of the Obama Administration’s policies that will leave you shaking your head!

In Defense of The Center for Security Policy 2015 Poll on American Muslims

On June 23, 2015 the Center for Security Policy (CSP) released the results of a survey of 600 American Muslims entitled Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad.  Three days later, the Bridge Initiative released a response to the CSP study entitled New Poll on American Muslims Is Grounded in Bias, Riddled with Flaws.  Two weeks later (July 07, 2015), the Bridge Initiative article was re-posted in the Religion section of the Huffington Post, under the title Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust the Latest Poll on American Muslims.

According to the Bridge Initiative, the findings of the CSP survey, which ‘cast doubt upon American Muslims’ loyalty to their country,’ included the following three takeaway points:

  1. “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”
  2. “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”
  3. “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

In addition, the Bridge Initiative article asserted that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously,’ while citing the following four critiques:

  1. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and
  2. Was administered using an unreliable methodology.
  3. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and
  4. Falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this article is to objectively evaluate whether the three takeaway points in the 2015 CSP survey are accurate (or not).

Note: It follows that if such an objective evaluation provides adequate proof that the three takeaway points in the CSP survey are accurate, then the Bridge Initiative’s assertions that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously’ must be considered invalid (irrelevant).

Analysis Methodology

To accomplish this, I followed the premise that the most reliable approach would be to compare the findings in the 2015 CSP survey with the results of as many other similar independent surveys (and/or statistical reviews) as possible. Thus, a comprehensive search for such surveys provided the following dates and titles (all URL’s accessed July 17, 2015):

February 19, 2006       Poll Reveals 40% Of Muslims Want Shariah Law In UK

August 14, 2006          Many British Muslims Put Islam First

March 16, 2008           Why Shariah?

July 07, 2008               Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia

May 25, 2009              Public Opinion In The Islamic World On Terrorism, Al Qaeda & US Policies

August 13, 2009          New Poll Shows 78% of Pakistanis Support Death Penalty for Leaving Islam

December 02, 2010     Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah

December 22, 2010     1 In 3 British Muslim Students Back Killing For Islam & 40% Want Sharia Law

August 30, 2011          Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism

November 02, 2011     62% Of Muslims In Canada Want Some Form Of Sharia

October 30, 3012         Guess Who U.S. Muslims Are Voting For?

April 30, 2013             The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

May 01, 2013              Seventy-Two Percent of Indonesian Muslims Favor Shariah Law

September 10, 2013     Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups

December 13, 2013     Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread

April 07, 2014             The Support for Sharia Law Around the World

October 14, 2014         Arab Public Opinion & The Fight Against ISIS

November 12, 2014     The Military Campaign Against The Islamic State In Iraq And The Levant

November 28, 2014     Support For ISIS Stronger In Arabic Social Media In Europe Than In Syria

March 04, 2015            Public Opinion Towards Terrorist Organizations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen & Libya

June 28, 2015               ISIS Has Up To 42 Million Supporters in the Arab World

Results

After a careful review and comparison of these 21 published surveys with the 2015 CSP survey’s three takeaway points, we arrive at the following conclusions:

1.  “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”

Overall, an average of at least 64% of Muslims in more than 50 countries worldwide would prefer to be governed by shariah law.  At 51%, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

2.  “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”

Overall, more than 20% of Muslims around the world support the use of violence to defend Islam from its enemies. In some parts of the Islamic world, this number is consistently higher than 20%.  However, as with Point [1], the American Muslim community falls well within the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

3.  “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

The use of violence [Jihad] to make shariah the law of the land is the stated goal of groups such as Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, & etc., as well as the Quran itself (i.e., see 2.191-193 & 8.59-60).  Support for these Islamist groups varies from a low of 13% to a high of 52%, depending on the particular group and/or country in question.  Once again, as with the two points above, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

Conclusion

An analysis of 21 surveys conducted over a 10-year period reveals that the spectrum of opinions within the American Muslim community on shariah law and the use of violence either to punish the enemies of Islam, or to make shariah the law of the land, are exactly the same as the spectrum of opinions held by Muslims in the rest of the world.  Muslims in America are not an anomaly within the greater Islamic community (Ummah), nor do they depart significantly from the beliefs on shariah and/or Jihad that are held by Muslims in the rest of the Islamic world.  In other words, the CSP survey not only represents the views of Muslims nationwide, but globally as well.

Rather than habitually recycling ad hominem attacks against their opponents, while emphatically asserting that the results of the 2015 CSP survey were ‘riddled with flaws,’ the Bridge Initiative should:

  1. Provide an acceptable working definition of Shariah law (which dictates every aspect of an observant Muslim’s moral life),
  2. Conduct their own statistically valid survey, based on this acceptable working definition, and then
  3. Publish the results for the world to see.

Perhaps then, we could begin to build trust, and reduce some of the ‘generalizations about American Muslims ricocheting across the Internet and social media.’  Perhaps then, we could also begin dispelling some of the ‘misunderstanding of Islam’ among the poorly informed and non-equipped general public…that we hear about, so often, and so loudly.

Meanwhile, rather than ignoring an extensive 10-year archive of surveys documenting historical trends within the global Islamic community – trends that fully support the results of the 2015 CSP survey – it seems reasonable that we should expect a much higher level of scholastic integrity from such a prominent and well-endowed institution as the Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  As per its stated purpose, an improvement in professional integrity would be a much more effective way to build bridges, ‘improve relations’ and ‘enhance understanding of Muslims in the West.’

VIDEO: Understanding Civilizational Jihad In America

Understanding civilizational jihad is essential to America’s national security.

An expert on civilizational jihad is Mr. Frank Gaffney. Mr. Gaffney is a subject matter expert on the Global Jihad Movement. Mr. Gaffney was nominated by President Reagan to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations. He acted in that capacity for seven months during which time, he was the Chairman of the prestigious High Level Group, NATO’s senior politico-military committee. He also represented the Secretary of Defense in key U.S.-Soviet negotiations and ministerial meetings.

In this short 4 minute clip you will learn the basic elements of Jihad to better help you understand the world around you both friend and foe. Know Thyself and Know Thy Enemy.

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman invited Frank Gaffney, Admiral ‘Ace’ Lyons, and Clare Lopez to educate his congregation and the greater public through his “Speaker Series”

Take the information in this clip and learn about the threats to America and to your community.

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about the Center for Security Policy visit: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/. To learn more about the Rabbi Hausman speaker series here: http://www.atorah.org/

Muslim Brotherhood Operations Against the Right

Washington, D.C.:  In the wake of the ominous announcement last week by the State and Homeland Security Departments that they are no longer going to enforce statutory prohibitions on granting asylum to individuals who have provided “limited” material support to terrorists, two proponents of such policies have been called to account.

Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and an individual with longstanding family and personal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Suhail Khan, are the subject of a letter [PDF] to leaders of the American Conservative Union (ACU) signed by ten influential national security practitioners. The signers include: former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former Congressman Allen West, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin and former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph Schmitz.

The joint letter [PDF] transmits a Statement of Facts that responds to, and challenges, representations made concerning Messrs. Norquist and Khan in an exculpatory memorandum to the ACU Board written in September 2011 by one of its members, attorney Cleta Mitchell.  The ACU Board was moved on the basis of those representations to endorse Norquist and Khan, both of whom serve as members.

The Center for Security Policy facilitated the compilation of the forty-five pages listing eighty-seven rigorously documented facts and fifty-five endnotes.  Its President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. was the subject of the Mitchell memo that claimed on the basis of “fairly substantial due diligence” to have found no basis for Mr. Gaffney’s longstanding charges that both Messrs. Norquist and Khan have enabled Muslim Brotherhood influence operations directed at the conservative movement and Republican Party.

Upon the release of the letter to Ms. Mitchell and the rest of the ACU leadership, Mr. Gaffney observed: “The signers of this letter with its attached Statement of Facts have afforded the Board of the American Conservative Union, the conservative movement as a whole and the Republican Party of which they are important parts an opportunity to address afresh a problem many have chosen to ignore – and, thereby, allowed to continue.  These accomplished national security practitioners have rendered yet another service to their country and the cause of liberty.  It is deeply appreciated.”

A PDF of the joint letter, Executive Summary and Statement of Facts can be viewed at: www.securefreedom.org.

About the Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org