The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
Akram had no intention of any non-Brotherhood member ever seeing the memo, but the FBI presented it as evidence in a 2007 terrorism-financing trial. As a result, the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to transform America into an Islamist society became public for the first time.
Contrary to the opinions of pacifists and apologists, the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t just spawn the world’s most lethal terrorist groups; it is just as committed to the destruction of Western secular democracy as its more violent cousins. As Mohammed Badie, the Brotherhood’s supreme guide, put it, “Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny.” He also explained how that “resistance” would need to work: “The improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained . . . by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.”
The Muslim Brotherhood is committed to a long-term “civilization jihad,” a term the Brotherhood uses and mentioned in its Explanatory Memorandum to distinguish itself from the more violent forms of jihad. In some ways, this type of jihad actually poses a more insidious long-term threat to the West. While it may not involve detonating suicide vests and beheading infidels, it is a plan to influence and infiltrate Western societies through dawa, which literally means the calling of non-Muslims to join Islam or proselytism. “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America not through the sword but through dawa,” says Yusef al-Qaradawi, Egypt’s leading Muslim Brotherhood scholar. Dawa, in case you were wondering, is the principal means of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy civilization jihad.
The Brotherhood’s goal is nothing less than to Islamicize our free societies. They are working toward that goal through political and psychological warfare that includes cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations, propaganda, and other means of pushing sharia into Western societies bit by bit.
This is a highly coordinated effort that shames and intimidates opponents while persuading allies and fence-sitters that sharia and submission to Islam are the correct path. “We should all be very careful not to be colonized by something which is coming from this consumerist society,” said Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, Hasan al-Banna. “It should be us with our understanding of Islam, our principles, colonizing positively the United States of America.” (This from a man that Time magazine listed among the world’s top “thinkers” and whom Slate called “one of the most important intellectuals in the world” and the “Muslim Martin Luther.”)
The Brotherhood’s plan starts with the creation of small Muslim enclaves, communities that are entirely separate from the secular laws of our nations and in which Muslims are free to live under sharia. “Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith—ideologically, legislatively, and ethically—without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state,” the Brotherhood’s Qaradawi has said. That exact thing is already happening in Europe, where vigilante sharia squads are popping up, enforcing rules prohibiting alcohol and haranguing people who don’t dress modestly enough.
Key to the Brotherhood’s plans is a rejection of assimilation, and maintaining the Islamic supremacist view of the dar al-Islam (house of Islam) opposing the dar al-harb (house of war, or the rest of us). This is where the Brotherhood’s commitment to dawa is problematic for those of us here in America who believe that our Constitution should be the law of the land for all of our citizens, no matter their religion.
This is the civilization jihad in action—a parallel, but more subtle agenda compared to the violent jihad pursued by ISIS and al-Qaeda. Both are necessary for them to achieve their goals. Both are working.
One of the most troubling things about the Muslim Brotherhood is the slippery way in which the group denies any association with the Islamic supremacist tenets it espouses. They are seemingly okay with these lies because of the concept that lying in defense of Islam is not only permissible, it is encouraged. The Reliance of the Traveler, a legal text cited by many Islamic scholars and a go-to for the Muslim Brotherhood, counsels:
This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest. . . . When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.
This is known as the Islamic doctrine of taqqiya—lying for the sake of Islam. Quran 3:28 says, “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliya (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them” (emphasis added).
Taqqiya is used to conceal, obfuscate, or disguise one’s beliefs or convictions to confuse the enemy. It’s a classic technique used by the Muslim Brotherhood when they say one thing to Westerners and the opposite to their followers. It’s why Essam el-Errian, member of the Egyptian Brotherhood’s guidance council, took to the pages of the New York Times at the height of the Arab Spring to proclaim, “We aim to achieve reform and rights for all: not just for the Muslim Brotherhood, not just for Muslims, but for all Egyptians.” They sought nothing of the sort. Soon after the Brotherhood consolidated power, Coptic Christians were massacred and persecuted.
The Muslim Brotherhood has integrated itself into American culture by using various front groups (which don’t come with the violence and terror-connected baggage) to promote its cause. For example, the Brotherhood created the Muslim Students Association (MSA) to organize on campuses, as well as numerous other groups: the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE), the Islamic Medical Association (IMA), the Muslim Community Association (MCA), and others. The Brothers also formed other student groups in the 1970s, including the Muslim Arab Youth Assembly (MAYA) and Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA), and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
Some governments already recognize the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. In November 2014, the cabinet of the United Arab Emirates published a list of terrorist organizations that makes no distinction between groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
But not the United States government. Our leaders seem to think these guys are our friends.
As counterterrorism intelligence officer Stephen Coughlin recounts, in October 2011, individuals associated with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood wrote to the White House demanding an “embargo or discontinuation” of the dissemination of “information or materials relating to Islamic-based terrorism.” It seems that the words terrorism and Islam apparently couldn’t be used in the same sentences. The Brotherhood demanded retraining or “purges” of those at the White House involved with any of those materials. Shortly thereafter, Coughlin reports, John Brennan, a senior White House aide who is now director of the CIA, responded, “We share your sense of concern over these recent unfortunate incidents, and are moving forward to ensure problems are addressed with a keen sense of urgency.”
Brennan directed that the “White House immediately create an interagency task force to address the problem” and said that the people or the documents that the Muslim Brotherhood deemed “biased, false, and highly offensive” would be removed. This was part of a pattern and practice of the White House going out of its way to placate the Brotherhood, even sending senior officials, such as the FBI director, to meet with the Brotherhood, over the objections of Congress.
&n
bsp; The Brotherhood’s campaign to intimidate and silence officials in Washington who link Islam and terrorism is working brilliantly. The 9/11 Commission Report used the word jihad 126 times, Muslim 145 times, and Islam 322 times. A decade later, they have been virtually banished from official U.S. government documents. The FBI’s Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon and the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy have zero mentions of jihad, Muslim, or Islam. Instead, they refer to “violent extremism” in general.
This is madness. We need to see people and groups for what they really are—not what we want them to be. The Brotherhood is at the center of a civilization jihad. It is not bloody or violent (yet) but it is just as threatening to the long-term survival of our Constitution as anything the Islamists in the Islamic State or Iran are planning.
LIE #13
* * *
“ISLAM RESPECTS FREEDOM OF SPEECH.”
“The Quranic standard of speech promotes independent thought while encouraging respectful disagreement. . . . In a sentence, Islam champions free speech while promoting a moral speech that obliges Muslims to attain a higher standard of wisdom.”
—Author and attorney Qasim Rashid, USA Today
“Our basic position is that the First Amendment means that everyone is free to be a bigot or even an idiot[.]”
—Ibrahim Hooper, Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
“As Americans we understand the importance of the right to free speech and freedom of expression. American Muslims value this right on behalf of every American citizen and would never shy away from ever defending this right.”
—Islamic Circle of North America
On May 3, 2015, roommates Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson drove a thousand miles from Phoenix, Arizona, to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, where the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) had gathered for its inaugural Muhammad art exhibit and contest. These two “lone wolves,” armed with AK-47 assault rifles and wearing body armor, rolled up to the convention center’s entrance and opened fire on police and security guards posted outside.
One security guard was shot in the ankle, but the nearly two hundred people in attendance were fortunate that a police officer shot and killed both men before they could carry out a jihad-inspired act of mass murder.
The FBI quickly established that Soofi and Simpson were radical Muslims who frequented ISIS chat boards, downloaded jihadist videos, and pledged allegiance to Amirul Mu’mineen—meaning “the leader of the faithful” in the Islamic State. ISIS, in fact, took credit for the attacks and promised that more would be coming.
The “Draw Muhammad” contest and ADFI are the work of Pamela Geller, who may be the most tireless voice against homegrown jihadism and creeping sharia in America today. She isn’t afraid of making people uncomfortable by telling hard truths, and she’s made plenty of enemies on both sides of the aisle as a result.
Geller chose the Garland location because it was the same site where a “Stand with the Prophet” conference was held in January. She and about two thousand supporters protested that event, which came just a few weeks after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.
When Geller announced the ten-thousand-dollar cartoon contest, she said: “This event will stand for free speech and show that Americans will not be cowed by violent Islamic intimidation. That is a crucial stand to take as Islamic assaults on the freedom of speech, our most fundamental freedom, are growing more insistent.” Geller assured would-be attendees that the event would have heavy security, but added, “If we don’t show the jihadis that they will not frighten us into silence, the jihad against freedom will only grow more virulent.”
It turns out that she was half right. Geller and her group showed they were not afraid to stand up for their rights in the face of real threats. But the jihad against freedom has become more virulent in spite of it.
It wasn’t surprising that ISIS claimed credit for inspiring the Garland attack. Or that someone like Anjem Choudary, the media’s go-to extremist imam, would tell Geller on Fox News that she “knew the consequences” of holding a contest that depicted Muhammad—an act that many Muslims, not just jihadists, believe is a grave insult.
No, the real insult was the media’s rush to condemn Geller and blame her free speech event for inspiring an act of jihadi violence.
The Garland incident could not have been more clear-cut. Here was a group of Americans assembled peacefully to exercise their First Amendment rights, only to come under armed assault by men who wished to kill them for looking at cartoons. For their bravery in the face of terror, the New York Times presumed to tell Geller and her supporters that their freedom of speech was inferior to . . . well, to the sort of freedom of speech the Times deems more acceptable.
“There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies,” the Times’ editors began in an editorial published a few days after the attack. “There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.”
The editorial should have ended there—short, sweet, and unobjectionable. Instead, the editors decided to ladle on heavy dollops of contempt for their fellow Americans. “But”—But!—“it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom . . . to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”
So the New York Times editorial board is populated with mind readers all of a sudden? They know with absolute certainty that Geller’s event was all about “bigotry” and “hatred”—and nothing else? Talk about hogwash.
The Times’ editors weren’t alone in missing the point.
Journalists lined up to denounce the cartoon contest and basically accuse Geller of walking alone in Mosul at night wearing a short skirt. Surely she knew what would happen next! Chris Matthews mused on MSNBC that Geller somehow set up Soofi and Simpson—as if they couldn’t help but drive fifteen hours to commit unspeakable acts of violence. Rukmini Callimachi, a New York Times reporter who covers Islam and terrorism, took to Twitter to ask: “Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a ‘Muhammad drawing contest’?” Free speech aside? You can’t put it “aside”—it’s the whole point!
If Callimachi had asked the same question of a rape victim, she would have been hounded off the Internet and probably fired. But the media has different standards for outspoken conservative women who are unwilling to surrender their rights to religious zealots.
CNN’s Chris Cuomo berated Geller on his program, accusing her of planning the contest to spark a violent confrontation with “crazy extremists” who “bought into an ideology that is sick.” He then absurdly compared drawing pictures of Muhammad to an overused racial slur. “The N-word gets treated the same way that depictions of Muhammad does,” Cuomo said. “We don’t say it because it’s offensive, not because legally I can’t.” We have reached the point where TV talking heads can no longer tell the difference between bona fide political speech and simple racist invective.
On Fox News, Greta Van Susteren said that Geller’s free speech rights should not trump police officers’ safety. “My message is simple—protect our police. Do not recklessly lure them into danger, and that is what happened in Garland, Texas, at the Mohammed cartoon contest,” she said at the top of her May 5 program. “Yes, of course, there’s a First Amendment right and it’s very important, but the exercise of that right includes using good judgment.”
There is actually no “but” in the First Amendment. And Greta seemed to forget that government exists to protect us and our rights, not the other way around.
Despite the intensity of coverage, many news media outlets opted to blur out the images, seemingly relying on the theory of ??
?better safe than sorry.”
The truth is that our media and our politicians have been wobbling on freedom of speech for quite a while.
When cartoons of Muhammad were originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, they sparked protests and riots throughout Europe and the Middle East. At the time, to their lasting disgrace, the vast majority of major American newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times, refused to show readers the cartoons that had caused so much havoc. Only a small number of publications—including the New York Sun, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the left-wing Harper’s magazine—printed even one of the controversial illustrations. Most chose to hide behind the fig leaf of religious sensitivity.
As a spokesman for the Wall Street Journal explained, “Readers were well served by a short story without publishing the cartoon. We didn’t want to publish anything that can be perceived as inflammatory to our readers’ culture when it didn’t add anything to the story.” Apparently, Journal readers couldn’t be trusted to decide for themselves whether the cartoons were offensive or newsworthy.
You might have at least expected the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC) to join in solidarity with their colleagues in the Netherlands. If so, you’d have been disappointed. “Just because you have the right to publish these, that does not mean you have the obligation,” said Nick Anderson, who was the AAEC’s vice president when the cartoon controversy reached its peak. He asserted, without a shred of evidence, that Jyllands-Posten’s editors “wanted to put a stick in the eye of their local clerics and did this intentionally, belittled and mocked the founder of a religion.” He told the New York Times that the few U.S. newspapers that published the cartoons had fallen into a trap. “If you’re doing it in solidarity, look at with whom you’re expressing solidarity.”