Jihad 101

[Warrior-Mentor]

Jihad 101

Center for Security Policy
Dec 28, 2009
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came in for some well-deserved criticism for declaring over the weekend that "the system worked" with respect to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's effort to blow up the plane he was flying from Amsterdam to Detroit. By Monday, she was backpedalling, acknowledging that "our system did not work in this instance."

In truth, for a lot of Americans, Ms. Napolitano has not had much credibility since she tried to ban "terrorism" from the official lexicon of her department. But arguably the most serious indication that she is wholly ill-equipped to carry out her present responsibilities can be found in another - as yet uncorrected - statement she made on Sunday. She told CNN's "State of the Union" that, "Right now, we have no indication [that Abdulmutallab's actions were] part of anything larger."

Not "part of anything larger"? Is she serious? Does she take us for fools?

Read my lips, Secretary Napolitano: Abdulmutallab's actions were absolutely, positively part of something larger. What they were part of is the comprehensive theo-political-legal program that authoritative Islam calls Shariah.

This supremacist program requires its adherents to engage in jihad, or holy war, to bring about the triumph of Islam under a global theocracy, one that will impose Shariah on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Pursuant to Shariah, jihad should - wherever practicable - be pursued through the terrifying use of violence. Where violent jihad is impractical or would be counterproductive, Shariah directs faithful Muslims to use other means to advance the same goal. Koran expert Robert Spencer calls the latter "stealth jihad."

The question must be asked: Are we seeing a dramatic increase in violent jihadism in America - National Public Radio reported on Saturday that there had been fourteen attempts in 2009 (compared to two or three in recent years) and that they had been increasingly "operational" in character, not just "aspirational" - because violence is now seen to be practicable here?

Specifically, could it be that jihadists have been emboldened by what they see as weakness and/or fecklessness on the part of the U.S. administration? Could steps Team Obama has taken - such as the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the release of some hardened terrorists held there to Yemen (where Abdulmuttalab claims he got his plastic explosive device), granting others access to civilian courts and constitutional rights, etc. - actually be emboldening them to believe that murder and mayhem will accelerate the defeat and conquest of the infidel West?

The U.S. government was warned by Abdulmutallab's father at least two months ago that his son had been "radicalized" - in other words, that he had embraced Shariah. That being the case, he was transformed from being one of the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who are not a problem into one of those who are.

In the wake of the latest, narrowly averted massacre at the hands of jihadists, we are being promised executive branch reviews of the practice that, in the wake of his father's warning, put Abdulmuttalab on the improbably named Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database - but did not revoke his multiple entry U.S. visa or otherwise keep him from flying. Multiple congressional investigations will be launched, as well.

Such reviews will, however, amount to little more than a waste of time and taxpayer resources - and possibly a serious distraction - if they do not address, and henceforth require screening for, the motivation for such attacks. It is absurd to think that "the system" is going to do anything other than exponentially increase the amount of discomfort for airline passengers as long as it does not weed out those who embrace as an article of faith their duty to destroy us.

We need to be equally clear about the menace posed by those who adhere to Shariah but profess to seek to "Islamicize" America through non-violent means. In the wake of the recent actual and averted attacks, the press has, for example, trumpeted the views of parents of five jihadists from Northern Virginia, imams at mosques where they worshipped and prominent fixtures in the various Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. Unsurprisingly, all of them profess shock - shock! - that these young people would want to do as they have been taught to, pursuant to Shariah: namely, follow the way of jihad against the Dar al-Harb (the "House of War" that is the non-Muslim world).

Nowhere in these disinformation operations is any mention made of the Muslim Brotherhood's self-declared mission in America. According to an internal Brotherhood strategic plan dating from 1991, that mission 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 Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

As long as Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, the intelligence community, law enforcement, the military, the media and most especially President Obama refuse to acknowledge what animates our enemies, we will never develop an effective strategy for defeating them, let alone successfully implement it. Part and parcel of achieving such an understanding is to stop allowing the stealth jihadists in our midst to blind us to this reality.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, "Secure Freedom Radio."

[NosceHostem]

I saw Frank Gaffney give an excellent talk at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club a couple months ago on the threat of the Sharia stealth jihad. The audio can be downloaded here (http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/10/10-04gaffney-audio.html).

[Thomas Paine]

Gaffney is the MAN!

[NosceHostem]

Since Jihad and Islam are virtually synonymous, I thought this would be an appropriate place to link to the ISLAM 101 (http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html) section from Jihad Watch. I've posed its conclusion below:


Conclusion

The chief barrier today to a better understanding of Islam -- apart, perhaps, from outright fear -- is sloppy language. Let us take, to start with, the much-vaunted "war on terror." Upon scrutiny, the phrase "war on terror" makes as much sense as a war on "blitzkrieg," "bullets," or "strategic bombing." The "war on terror" implies that it is perfectly fine if the enemy seeks to destroy us -- and, indeed, succeeds in doing so -- as long as he does not employ "terror" in the process.

"Terrorism," it should be obvious, is a tactic or stratagem used to advance a goal; it is the goal of Islamic terrorism that we must come to understand, and this logically requires an understanding of Islam.

As we have seen, contrary to the widespread insistence that true Islam is pacific even if a handful of its adherents are violent, the Islamic sources make clear that engaging in violence against non-Muslims is a central and indispensable principle to Islam. Islam is less a personal faith than a political ideology that exists in a fundamental and permanent state of war with non-Islamic civilizations, cultures, and individuals. The Islamic holy texts outline a social, governmental, and economic system for all mankind. Those cultures and individuals who do not submit to Islamic governance exist in an ipso facto state of rebellion with Allah and must be forcibly brought into submission. The misbegotten term "Islamo-fascism" is wholly redundant: Islam itself is a kind of fascism that achieves its full and proper form only when it assumes the powers of the state.

The spectacular acts of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are but the most recent manifestation of a global war of conquest that Islam has been waging since the days of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th Century AD and that continues apace today. This is the simple, glaring truth that is staring the world today in the face -- and which has stared it in the face numerous times in the past -- but which it seems few today are willing to contemplate.

It is important to realize that we have been talking about Islam -- not Islamic "fundamentalism," "extremism," "fanaticism," "Islamo-fascism," or "Islamism," but Islam proper, Islam in its orthodox form as it has been understood and practiced by right-believing Muslims from the time of Muhammad to the present. The mounting episodes of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are due largely to the geostrategic changes following the end of the Cold War and the growing technical options available to terrorists.

With the collapse of Soviet hegemony over much of the Muslim world, coupled with the burgeoning wealth of the Muslim oil-producing countries, the Muslim world increasingly possesses the freedom and means to support jihad around the globe. In short, the reason that Muslims are once again waging war against the non-Muslim world is because they can.

It is paramount to note, however, that, even if no major terrorist attack ever occurs on Western soil again, Islam still poses a mortal danger to the West. A halt to terrorism would simply mean a change in Islam's tactics -- perhaps indicating a longer-term approach that would allow Muslim immigration and higher birth rates to bring Islam closer to victory before the next round of violence. It cannot be overemphasized that Muslim terrorism is a symptom of Islam that may increase or decrease in intensity while Islam proper remains permanently hostile.

Muhammad Taqi Partovi Samzevari, in his "Future of the Islamic Movement" (1986), sums up the Islamic worldview.

Our own Prophet ... was a general, a statesman, an administrator, an economist, a jurist and a first-class manager all in one. ... In the Qur'an's historic vision Allah's support and the revolutionary struggle of the people must come together, so that Satanic rulers are brought down and put to death. A people that is not prepared to kill and to die in order to create a just society cannot expect any support from Allah. The Almighty has promised us that the day will come when the whole of mankind will live united under the banner of Islam, when the sign of the Crescent, the symbol of Muhammad, will be supreme everywhere. ... But that day must be hastened through our Jihad, through our readiness to offer our lives and to shed the unclean blood of those who do not see the light brought from the Heavens by Muhammad in his mi'raj {"nocturnal voyages to the 'court' of Allah"}. ... It is Allah who puts the gun in our hand. But we cannot expect Him to pull the trigger as well simply because we are faint-hearted.

It must be emphasized that all of the analysis provided here derives from the Islamic sources themselves and is not the product of critical Western scholarship. (Indeed, most modern Western scholarship of Islam is hardly "critical" in any meaningful sense.) It is Islam's self-interpretation that necessitates and glorifies violence, not any foreign interpretation of it.