T-Rock
05-17-2010, 02:24
From Creeping Sharia:
Radical Muslims Succeeding In Taking Over The U.S.
By Herb Denenberg
Radical Islam is subverting America without guns or bombs. That’s the subtitle of a frightening and important new book by Robert Spencer, one of the leading authorities on radical Islam.
We may have been spared the guns and bombs of the Islamofascist terrorists since 9/11, but we haven’t been spared their attempt to substitute the laws of Islam for the U.S. Constitution and to make America more like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the Sudan, where the Muslim laws are in full force.
Mr. Spencer is an important voice of these matters, and if you think this is too shocking to be believed, consider some of the experts who have endorsed the author’s work. Among them are R. James Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence; John Bolton, former representative to the United Nations; Steve Emerson, head of the investigative project and one of the leading authorities on Islamofascist terrorism; Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad, and legal editor of the National Review; and Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and another leading expert on terrorism. You could not get a more authoritative endorsement on this subject.
Consider Mr. Woolsey’s brief description of the book: “Robert Spencer makes a solid case that the major threat to our way of life does not come solely from those radical Islamists who embrace violence and terrorism.
It also comes from those who do not accept that they must live side-by-side on a basis of equality with those of other faiths in a civil society and who instead work in multiple ways toward obtaining special standing for Islam in our society, and, ultimately toward theocracy. A vital wake-up call of a book.”
Unfortunately, we have not listened to that wake-up call and seem to be slumbering in the face of what can only be described as a Muslim take-over of America. That should not come as a revelation. Mark Steyn in his classic book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, describes how Europe has already almost fallen without a shot being fired to the oncoming Muslim immigrants and Muslim influence. Other powerful volumes have confirmed the same theme including Melanie Phillips’, Londonistan and Bruce Bawer’s, While Europe Slept.
If you think this is a sudden new development we’ve all somehow missed, think again. This has been going on for many years, and Europe has been sleeping for 30 years. Mr. Spencer writes, “Europe is now reaping what it has long sown.”
In her book, Eurabia, Bar Ye’or, the pioneering historian of dhimmitude [subjugation of non-Muslims], chronicles how this has come to pass. Europe, she explains, began 30 years ago to travel down a path of appeasement, accommodation, and cultural abdication in pursuit of shortsighted political and economic benefits. She observes that today, “Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a civilization of dhimmitude, i.e., Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing.”
And as Messrs. Steyn and Spencer fully document, America is not as far gone toward Islamization as Europe, but it has started down the same path to civilizational oblivion.
Mr. Spencer meticulously documents how the Muslims slowly take over a civilization. This is part of a carefully planned strategy. Mr. Spencer writes, “But in the short-term, the absence of violence, combined with a bit of political savvy – allows the stealth jihadists to do their work more effectively. This is one of the lessons that some jihadists learned from September 11: attack America, and it tends to strike back; but quietly undermine America from within, and there’s a lot less resistance. In fact, people tend not even to notice.”
This low-key approach to jihadism has been adopted by Hezbollah. Its leader made it clear that the terror organization wants to destroy the U.S. But an FBI expert says Hezbollah has stayed away from violence in the U.S. “because of the attention and reaction that would occur.” Perhaps the reason there has been no encore to 9/11 is not just our security or good fortune, but a deliberate choice by terrorists not to rock the American boat.
Mr. Spencer gives some compelling examples of how the Muslims push their agenda in small steps and big steps. For example, sometimes the steps seem small and of minor importance. In one cemetery in the United Kingdom, to please the Muslims and not offend them, all graves of Muslims and non-Muslims alike face Mecca.
However, sometimes the accommodation is both significant and dangerous. The U.S. government relies on the voice of groups such as INSA for the “Islamic perspective” on U.S. policies. Mr. Spencer cautions, “Of course, the fact that these groups and the enemy we are fighting share the same goal -the Islamization of the Western world – casts some doubt on the utility of the advice we receive from them.”
Only recently, the Bush administration has started to realize these groups share the Islamic supremacist agenda and are working for the Islamization of America. So they have started to distance themselves from them.
But the Bush administration still relies on these groups more than it should, according to Mr. Spencer, who finds, “The recommendations of these groups continue to find their way into official U.S. policies, where they serve to silence those in the government who dissent from the myopic view of Islam as a religion of peace.”
It gets worse. The Pentagon declined to renew the contract of Maj. Stephen Coughlin, its lone specialist on Islamic law. He was dropped because he refused to soften his views on the elements jihadists use to justify violence. Maj. Coughlin believes to fight the enemy you have to understand the enemy and be able to define and name it.
The U.S. government and its major agencies such as the Department of State and Department of Homeland Security renounced the views of Maj. Coughlin and put out new guidelines forbidding personnel to use the words “jihad” or “jihadist” in reference to Islamic terrorism and its perpetrators.
A Homeland Security report, titled “Terminology to Define the Terrorist Recommendations from American Muslims,” actually said that the words “jihad” and “jihadists” were dropped because they might offend moderate Muslims.
Why can’t these terms be used? Mr. Spencer quotes the reasoning of Homeland Security in rejecting these words: “Because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world.” The report cautioned U.S. officials “should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam.”
This book totally refutes that position, by carefully documenting how violent jihadism is not just a small fringe movement: “The sanction of violent jihad to spread Islam is not some fringe view, as the Bush administration insists, but rather is the interpretation put forward by many of the most prominent scholars of Islamic law throughout history – including today.”
So we not only refuse to name and define our enemies, but even let them name and define the problem for us. That is nothing less than insane, but it is the policy of the U.S. government. And there is every reason to believe that a bad situation will only get worse with the next administration.
Mr. Spencer devotes a whole chapter to how the Muslims silence their critics. In some foreign countries they use “death threats, murders, act of mass terrorism and beheadings broadcast over the Internet.”
But in America, where the stealth jihad is employed, more subtle techniques are used. The critics are labeled “bigots,” “hatemongers” and “Islamophobes.” These more subtle techniques may be more effective than death threats. That’s because with death threats there would be reactions and investigations. But Islamicists skillfully play the racism and bigotry card without generating any forceful response.
The Islamic groups also use lawsuits to silence critics. For example, Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, sued Andrew Whitehead and others for saying that CAIR was founded by Hamas supporters, and wants to implement sharia law in America. When Whitehead’s attorneys started asking questions about the funding and operations of CAIR, it dropped the lawsuit.
If the present trend continues we are in deep trouble. That’s because the stealth jihadists groups are not only controlling public opinion so it does not understand or focus on the threat but are also controlling government policy.
Radical Muslims Succeeding In Taking Over The U.S.
By Herb Denenberg
Radical Islam is subverting America without guns or bombs. That’s the subtitle of a frightening and important new book by Robert Spencer, one of the leading authorities on radical Islam.
We may have been spared the guns and bombs of the Islamofascist terrorists since 9/11, but we haven’t been spared their attempt to substitute the laws of Islam for the U.S. Constitution and to make America more like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the Sudan, where the Muslim laws are in full force.
Mr. Spencer is an important voice of these matters, and if you think this is too shocking to be believed, consider some of the experts who have endorsed the author’s work. Among them are R. James Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence; John Bolton, former representative to the United Nations; Steve Emerson, head of the investigative project and one of the leading authorities on Islamofascist terrorism; Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad, and legal editor of the National Review; and Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and another leading expert on terrorism. You could not get a more authoritative endorsement on this subject.
Consider Mr. Woolsey’s brief description of the book: “Robert Spencer makes a solid case that the major threat to our way of life does not come solely from those radical Islamists who embrace violence and terrorism.
It also comes from those who do not accept that they must live side-by-side on a basis of equality with those of other faiths in a civil society and who instead work in multiple ways toward obtaining special standing for Islam in our society, and, ultimately toward theocracy. A vital wake-up call of a book.”
Unfortunately, we have not listened to that wake-up call and seem to be slumbering in the face of what can only be described as a Muslim take-over of America. That should not come as a revelation. Mark Steyn in his classic book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, describes how Europe has already almost fallen without a shot being fired to the oncoming Muslim immigrants and Muslim influence. Other powerful volumes have confirmed the same theme including Melanie Phillips’, Londonistan and Bruce Bawer’s, While Europe Slept.
If you think this is a sudden new development we’ve all somehow missed, think again. This has been going on for many years, and Europe has been sleeping for 30 years. Mr. Spencer writes, “Europe is now reaping what it has long sown.”
In her book, Eurabia, Bar Ye’or, the pioneering historian of dhimmitude [subjugation of non-Muslims], chronicles how this has come to pass. Europe, she explains, began 30 years ago to travel down a path of appeasement, accommodation, and cultural abdication in pursuit of shortsighted political and economic benefits. She observes that today, “Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a civilization of dhimmitude, i.e., Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing.”
And as Messrs. Steyn and Spencer fully document, America is not as far gone toward Islamization as Europe, but it has started down the same path to civilizational oblivion.
Mr. Spencer meticulously documents how the Muslims slowly take over a civilization. This is part of a carefully planned strategy. Mr. Spencer writes, “But in the short-term, the absence of violence, combined with a bit of political savvy – allows the stealth jihadists to do their work more effectively. This is one of the lessons that some jihadists learned from September 11: attack America, and it tends to strike back; but quietly undermine America from within, and there’s a lot less resistance. In fact, people tend not even to notice.”
This low-key approach to jihadism has been adopted by Hezbollah. Its leader made it clear that the terror organization wants to destroy the U.S. But an FBI expert says Hezbollah has stayed away from violence in the U.S. “because of the attention and reaction that would occur.” Perhaps the reason there has been no encore to 9/11 is not just our security or good fortune, but a deliberate choice by terrorists not to rock the American boat.
Mr. Spencer gives some compelling examples of how the Muslims push their agenda in small steps and big steps. For example, sometimes the steps seem small and of minor importance. In one cemetery in the United Kingdom, to please the Muslims and not offend them, all graves of Muslims and non-Muslims alike face Mecca.
However, sometimes the accommodation is both significant and dangerous. The U.S. government relies on the voice of groups such as INSA for the “Islamic perspective” on U.S. policies. Mr. Spencer cautions, “Of course, the fact that these groups and the enemy we are fighting share the same goal -the Islamization of the Western world – casts some doubt on the utility of the advice we receive from them.”
Only recently, the Bush administration has started to realize these groups share the Islamic supremacist agenda and are working for the Islamization of America. So they have started to distance themselves from them.
But the Bush administration still relies on these groups more than it should, according to Mr. Spencer, who finds, “The recommendations of these groups continue to find their way into official U.S. policies, where they serve to silence those in the government who dissent from the myopic view of Islam as a religion of peace.”
It gets worse. The Pentagon declined to renew the contract of Maj. Stephen Coughlin, its lone specialist on Islamic law. He was dropped because he refused to soften his views on the elements jihadists use to justify violence. Maj. Coughlin believes to fight the enemy you have to understand the enemy and be able to define and name it.
The U.S. government and its major agencies such as the Department of State and Department of Homeland Security renounced the views of Maj. Coughlin and put out new guidelines forbidding personnel to use the words “jihad” or “jihadist” in reference to Islamic terrorism and its perpetrators.
A Homeland Security report, titled “Terminology to Define the Terrorist Recommendations from American Muslims,” actually said that the words “jihad” and “jihadists” were dropped because they might offend moderate Muslims.
Why can’t these terms be used? Mr. Spencer quotes the reasoning of Homeland Security in rejecting these words: “Because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world.” The report cautioned U.S. officials “should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam.”
This book totally refutes that position, by carefully documenting how violent jihadism is not just a small fringe movement: “The sanction of violent jihad to spread Islam is not some fringe view, as the Bush administration insists, but rather is the interpretation put forward by many of the most prominent scholars of Islamic law throughout history – including today.”
So we not only refuse to name and define our enemies, but even let them name and define the problem for us. That is nothing less than insane, but it is the policy of the U.S. government. And there is every reason to believe that a bad situation will only get worse with the next administration.
Mr. Spencer devotes a whole chapter to how the Muslims silence their critics. In some foreign countries they use “death threats, murders, act of mass terrorism and beheadings broadcast over the Internet.”
But in America, where the stealth jihad is employed, more subtle techniques are used. The critics are labeled “bigots,” “hatemongers” and “Islamophobes.” These more subtle techniques may be more effective than death threats. That’s because with death threats there would be reactions and investigations. But Islamicists skillfully play the racism and bigotry card without generating any forceful response.
The Islamic groups also use lawsuits to silence critics. For example, Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, sued Andrew Whitehead and others for saying that CAIR was founded by Hamas supporters, and wants to implement sharia law in America. When Whitehead’s attorneys started asking questions about the funding and operations of CAIR, it dropped the lawsuit.
If the present trend continues we are in deep trouble. That’s because the stealth jihadists groups are not only controlling public opinion so it does not understand or focus on the threat but are also controlling government policy.