Tag Archives: Daily Brief

Mightier Pen 2012: The Media, the Election and National Security

December 16, 2012Center for Security Policy

On December 11, 2012 the Center for Security Policy honored radio host and bestselling author Monica Crowley with the Mightier Pen Award and hosted its annual National Security and New Media Conference.

The 2012 Mightier Pen Award

The Mightier Pen Award recognizes journalists who promote the need for robust US national security policies through the indispensability of American strength to preserving international peace. As a political and foreign affairs analyst, Monica Crowley has been a long-standing supporter of the Center’s belief that America’s national power must be preserved and properly used; for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability. Ms Crowley’s new book, What the (Bleep) Just Happened?, asks the questions that are on the minds of Americans today and makes the case for a “great American comeback,” including a return to the security posture that made America great.

The Media, the 2012 Election and National Security

In addition to the Mightier Pen Award, the Center’s National Security and New Media Conference will bring together some of the the most experienced and provocative voices in journalism to address several problems in mainstream media reporting on national security topics, with an emphasis on the recent presidential election.

Beyond Bias: The Mainstream Media

Outraged. That’s how Americans feel about the performance of the mainstream media in the 2012 election season. From the New York Times to the networks, CNN and of course, MSNBC, they have now moved far beyond their role as impartial journalists into active political operatives. What happens to a nation when the mainstream media overwhelmingly become the propagandists for the Left? Featured panelists:

Richard Miniter: Columnist, Forbes Magazine and New York Times best-selling author and investigative journalis;
Bill Gertz: Senior Editor, Washington Free Beacon, Columnist, Washington Times and Best-selling author of six books on national security; and
Andrew McCarthy: Columnist, National Review Online and PJMedia, Executive Director, Philadelphia David Horowitz Freedom Centerand Former chief prosecutor in the 1993 WTC bombing

To the Rescue: The New Media & National Security

The election was the worst of times for the old mainstream media – but the best of times for the independent new media investigative reporters who are reinventing American journalism. All our panelists broke major stories during the campaign, as new media pioneers setting the highest standards for professional journalism. Can they and their colleagues become the future of a free press in America? Featured panelists:

Tiffany Gabbay: Assistant Editor, The Blaze;
Peter Schweizer: Founder, Big Peace (Breitbart.com); William J. Casey Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University; New York Times and Washington Post best-selling author; and President, Government Accountability Institute
John Nolte: Editor in Chief, Big Hollywood (Breitbart.com)

Transcripts are on the following pages.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

November 13, 2012Center for Security Policy

On November 13 at Hillsdale College in Washington, DC, the Center for Security Policy presented a live-streamed panel discussion with three of America’s top experts on the shariah doctrinal threat to national security. Dr. Andrew Bostom, Diana West and Stephen Coughlin will be joined by Frank Gaffney to discuss, “Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine.”

Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Featuring nationally-recognized experts and authors:

Dr. Andrew G. Bostom – author of Sharia versus Freedom (Prometheus Books, October 2012). Dr. Bostom’s earlier publications include The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History and The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims . He posts regularly athttp://www.andrewbostom.org/blog.

Diana West – author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character (St. Martin’s Press, April 2013). Ms. West’s earlier publications include The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization and Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II) . She posts regularly athttp://dianawest.net.

Stephen Coughlin – author of Catastrophic Failure: The Big Lie in the War on Terror (Center for Security Policy Press, January 2013). Mr. Coughlin’s earlier publications include Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II) , and “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.” His popular series of educational video lectures on Shariah doctrine can be viewed on youtube: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5 .

Moderator: Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy

Transcript

FRANK GAFFNEY: This promises to be a most informative and hopefully very constructive contribution to our understanding of what has happened, most immediately, in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012. But much more broadly, what is happening – what has happened since that terrible day in which four of our countrymen, including our ambassador to Libya, were murdered.

I am Frank Gaffney with the Center for Security Policy, and I have the privilege of moderating this conversation. This will, I hope, be a particularly useful exercise in connecting the proverbial dots. There are many of them now checkering the landscape and they’re much in need, it seems to me, of that connective tissue. The kind of information that will make sense, hopefully, of what’s going on in both Benghazi and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa and the Muslim world, as it’s called much more broadly. And indeed what’s going on here. We will be, I trust, discussing with our panel the nature of the relationship that the United States now has with the Muslim world, specifically as a result of the policies of the Obama administration.

I know we will be talking a bit at least about what I consider to be the absolute essence of the connective tissue between all of these dots, namely, shariah. The totalitarian, supremacist, Islamist program that its adherents seek to impose on all of us. I expect that in the course of our conversation, we’ll have a chance to visit about some of the manifestations of our policy approach to Islam in general and shariah specifically as it has been evidenced in such things as the counter-insurgency strategy, the so-called COIN strategy, whose principle author, as you know, has recently become the object of considerable controversy, shall we say. General David Petraeus. And whose current principle implementer is now also embroiled in controversy. The commanding general of our forces in Afghanistan, General John Allen. To visit about these issues, to illuminate them, to help us all – and most especially, those who will be holding in the next few days not one, not two, but three different hearings that will, we’re told, examine and hopefully elevate the sorts of questions that we’re addressing today, are three, as I say, of the best minds I know in this part of the battlespace in this part of the free world at the very least.

Our first speaker will be Dr. Andrew Bostom. Andy is, by my lights, one of the great renaissance men of our time. He’s not only a serious medical doctor, but he has also become one of our time’s, I think, leading authorities on this phenomenon of shariah. What it means for various minorities, notably the Jews, and for the rest of us who love freedom and seek its survival. His newest book, which is very much on point, and which we commend to you, is Shariah Versus Freedom. Andy will speak first and I think provide some important context for the rest of this discussion. Diana West is, I think, well known to this audience. As a nationally syndicated columnist, a remarkably powerful writer and thinker. But also the author of a marvelous book, Death of the Grownup. She will be commenting on the Benghazi-gate story as it fits into this paradigm of shariah and what it means for all of us. And finally, and certainly not least, Stephen Coughlin. Steve has served his country in uniform, rising to the rank of a major in the intelligence branch in the United States Army. He was called up and served after 9-11 and became the duty expert for the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Islam and the threat that its shariah adherents, particularly, pose to the rest of us. His master’s thesis has become one of the seminal works – and I think will become the subject of, or the bulk of a new book that we’re anticipating will be out shortly, entitled Catastrophic Failure.

ANDREW BOSTOM: J. B. Matthews, who announced a career as a communist front operative to become one of the world’s foremost anti-communist authorities on such groups, observed in his 1938 Odyssey of the Fellow Traveler, it cannot be denied that communists and their sympathizers object not only to a denunciation of communism, but also to a calm and critical examination of its principles and practices. Strange as it may seem, communists denounce those who merely cite the things of which communists themselves openly boast in their own public statements. Matthews observations from nearly seventy-five years ago are apposite to the discussion today, because he captures the shared reactions by both advocates of and apologists for two totalitarian ideological systems which are eerily similar. Modern communism and still-unreformed pre-modern Islam.

Indeed a contemporary humorist of Matthews had cogently highlighted the striking similarities between Islam and communism, referring to the communist’s creed with this aphorism. There is no god and Karl Marx is his prophet. Alas, in our present stultifying era that increasingly demands only a hagiographic view of Islam, even such witty illuminating aphorisms may become verboten. Witness president Obama’s stern warning during his Tuesday, September 25^th, 2012 speech to the UN General Assembly when he proclaimed the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. The travails in Libya and among the broader Middle Eastern Muslim participants in the Orwellian named Arab Spring demonstrate graphically how enforcing barbarized views of Islam which ignore Islamic doctrine in history intend a policy debacle. First, I will summarize the salient features of shariah, Islamic law, and its appeal as demonstrated by recent polling data from Libya’s North African Muslim neighbors, Morocco and Egypt. Then I will trace briefly how what my colleague Diana West has aptly termed our making the world safe for shariah policymaking mindset operated and continues to prevail in Libya. Derived from Islam’s most important canonical texts, the Koran and Hadith, and their interpretation and codification by Islam’s greatest classical legists, shariah, Islamic law, is not merely holistic in the general sense of all encompassing, but totalitarian. Regulating everything from the ritual aspects of religion to personal hygiene to the governance of a Muslim minority community, an Islamic state, bloc of states, or global Islamic order. Clearly this latter political aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient antecedent to more familiar modern totalitarian systems. Specifically, shariah’s liberty-crushing dehumanizing political aspects feature open ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order. Rejection of bedrock Western liberties. Including freedom of conscience and speech. Enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death. Discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast vulnerable pariahs. And even Muslim women to subservient chattel. And barbaric punishments which violate human dignity. Such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. But this – but is this ancient brutally oppressive totalitarian system still popular amongst the Muslim masses? Particularly in North Africa? In a word, yes. Polling data released April 24^th, 2007, from a rigorously conducted face to face University of Maryland worldopiniondynamic.org interview survey of the Muslims conducted between September 9, 2006, and February 15^th, 2007, 71 percent of the one thousand Moroccans and 67 percent of the one thousand Egyptians surveyed, desired this outcome to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate.

The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a caliphate was strongly suggested by a concordant result. 76 percent of Moroccan Muslims and 74 percent of Egyptian Muslims approved the proposition, quote, to require a strict application of shariah law in every Islamic country. Libyan rebel spokesperson, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, born in 1952 in al-Bayda, one of the first cities to rise against Gaddafi, studied law and Islamic jurisprudence in Benghazi before embarking on a legal career that culminated in his appointment in 2007 as Gaddafi’s minister of justice. A foreboding wikileaks memo from February 27^th, 2010, revealed, quote, in the course of the discussion of the criminal code, Abdul Jalil abruptly changed the subject from freedom of speech to the, quote, Libyan people’s concern with the US government’s support for Israel. He averred the Libya cares deeply about Muslims everywhere and about Muslim countries. In his view, the root cause of terrorism stems from the perception that Europe and the US are against Muslims, unquote. But in August of 2011, Abdul Jalil’s vision for Libya was apparent in his championing of Libya’s draft constitution whose salient feature was part one, article one which stated, Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence, shariah. Following Gaddafi’s removal, Sunday, October 23^rd, 2011, pronouncement by Abdul Jalil, now the leader of Libya’s transitional council, reiterated the overarching general role of shariah and including this specific example, he, Abdul Jalil, also announced the annulment of an existing secular family law that limits the number of wives a Libyan male can take, contradicting the provision in the Muslim holy book, the Koran. This would be Koran 4:3, which is the fourth chapter, third verse, that allows men up to four wives. Thus liberated Libya appeared bent on reinstituting shariah based polygamy in pious conformity with Koran 4:3. Simultaneously, in late October, 2011, reporter Sharif al-Halwa [PH] confirmed that the al-Qaeda flag was aloft on the Benghazi courthouse.

Several months later, during a trip to Libya in early 2012, al-Halwa noted the al-Qaeda flag was still flying atop Benghazi’s courthouse. But more importantly, he ventured to the jihadist flashpoint of eastern Libya, Derna, to expose Libya’s shariah enforcers. Unofficial Derna leader and local al-Qaeda head, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi proclaimed if you establish the shariah, we’re with you. We’re your soldiers. We’re ready to die alongside you if you establish shariah law. “Al-Qaeda in Libya: A Profile” was an August, 2012 report prepared by the combating terrorism technical support office, a Pentagon program office. Within a month of the murderous 9-11-12 attacks which left four dead, US Libyan ambassador Stevens, two heroic former Navy Seals, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and a US Air Force veteran, Sean Smith. The report emphasized how al-Qaeda senior leadership working via a large, powerful, and well-established jihadist infrastructure in Libya, including prominently Ansar al-Sharia, the group responsible for the Benghazi consulate attack, sought to capitalize on US and NATO supported insurrection which toppled the Libyan despot Gaddafi and fulfill its goal of making Libya part of an eventual transnational caliphate. A sizable Ansar al-Sharia public rally during June, 2012, was highlighted in the August, 2012 Pentagon report which also noted the unwillingness of Libya’s shariah supporting central government to contend with these ostensibly more radical avatars of shariah supremacism. With resigned sobriety, the Pentagon report emphasized how such jihadist al-Qaeda discourse resonates among a significant swath of the Libyan population. Finally, the Pentagon report’s executive summary raises serious questions about the callous inattention to security for US diplomatic and ancillary personnel in Benghazi. And more importantly, the abysmal see no shariah failure of imagination regarding overall US policy in Libya which has embedded the most fanatical jihadist extent of al-Qaeda itself. The report concluded – and I want to read this to you – al-Qaeda has established a core network in Libya. But it remains clandestine and refrains from using the al-Qaeda name. Ansar al-Shariah, led by Sufyan Ben Qumu, a former Guantanamo detainee, has increasingly embodied al-Qaeda’s presence in Libya as indicated by its active social media propaganda, extremist discourse, a hatred of the West, especially the United States. Al-Qaeda adherents in Libya used the 2011 revolution to establish well-armed, well-trained, and combat experienced militias. The al-Qaeda clandestine network is currently in an expansion phase. Running training camps and media campaigns on social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. However, it will likely continue to mask its presence under the umbrella of the Libyan Salafist movement and, with it, shares a radical ideology and a general intent to implement shariah in Libya and elsewhere.

And one of the apparent US avatars of this grossly misbegotten policy is now its most prominent victim-cum-martyr. Namely Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Diana West has brought to my attention two profoundly disturbing classified cables written by Stevens during 2008 which captured this warped mindset. Stevens made a pilgrimage to eastern Libya, Derna. The longstanding proud hotbed of jihad, which was a hub of the aggressive late 18^th through early 19^th Century North African Barbary jihad campaigns against the US. Moreover, even the absence of strict shariah compliance, anthropologist Evans-Pritchard’s 1949 characterization revealed how the Muslim Bedouin of eastern Libya compensated for the less than assiduous fulfillment of the ritual requirements of Islam by their jealous commitment to jihad. And here’s Evans-Pritchard’s description. It would also be a questionable judgment to assert that the Bedouin of Saranaga [PH] that’s eastern Libya, are not religious because they do not pay attention – the same attention – to outward ritual as do townspeople and peasants, for piety and holiness as we’ve often been admonished, are not the same. Perhaps the Bedouin make up for their shortcomings by their enthusiasm for the jihad, holy war, against unbelievers. They consider that they have fulfilled their obligation under this head in ample measure by their long and courageous fight, formally declared a holy war by the caliph of Islam, at the time, against the Italians, French, and British. A Bedouin once said to me when I remarked how rarely I had seen Bedouin at prayer, but we wage – but we fast and wage holy war, unquote. The 2008 cables reveal Stevens cavorting with the very Libyan Muslim denizens of Derna who are proudly sending their sons to be homicide bombers, etceteras, in Iraq, attacking and killing or grievously wounding US troops there at the highest per capita rate of any location in Islamdom.

One memo is more than sympathetic to this hotbed of jihadism. It is almost reverent. Stevens repeats uncritically their self-characterization as being like Bruce Willis in the movieDie Hard. Even entitling his cable as “Die Hard in Derna”. And one can perhaps see, as Diana West suggests, the germ of the idea for the strategy ultimately employed to overthrow Gaddafi spearheaded by jihadists like Stevens’ colleagues. The horrific depressing spectacle of our great nation’s willing exploitation by violent shariah supremacists brings to mind a remarkably candid assessment by the 18^th Century Moroccan Sufi master, Ibn Ajiba from his Koranic commentary, a work I was made aware of by my colleague Mark Duri [PH] describing unabashedly the purpose of the humiliating Koranic poll tax of submission for non-Muslims brought under Islamic hegemony by jihad, who become so-called dhimmis, as per Koran 9:29. Ibn Ajiba makes clear the ultimate goal of its imposition was to achieve what he called the death of the soul through the dhimmi’s execution of their own humanity. Here’s what he said. The dhimmi is commanded to put his soul, good fortune, and desires to death. Above all, he should kill the love of life, leadership, and honor. The dhimmi is to invert the longings of his soul, he is to load it down more heavily than it can bear until it is completely submissive. Thereafter, nothing will be unbearable for him. He will be indifferent to subjugation or might. Poverty and wealth will be the same to him. Praise and insult will be the same. Preventing and yielding will be the same. Lost and found will be the same. Then, when all things are the same, it – the soul – will be submissive and yield willingly what it should give. Cynically ignoring shariah doctrines and practices that permanently endanger the life, liberty and property of non-Muslims, US policymakers, epitomized by the murdered Libyan ambassador Stevens, have sacrificed US lives and our nation’s soul. Thank you.

DIANA WEST: Benghazi is a very complex story. I think it’s one of the most complex episodes that our nation has gone through in some time. It is complicated on many different levels. And my fear, actually at this point, now that we have some media attention on the concurrent scandals, is that we will lose the larger story. Right now, we’ve got the security breach story, we’ve got the who knew what when story, and we have the Petraeus and General Allen stories fogging our minds, perhaps. But I think that the – while these are necessary points to nail down and necessary scandals to reveal, there is the un-discussed and unnoticed larger scandal, which is the fact – as Andy was alluding to – that the Obama administration supported al-Qaeda forces in Libya against Gaddafi, who up until the time he was killed, was an ally against al-Qaeda forces worldwide. So another way of saying this, really, the way I like to say it, is that in Libya, Uncle Sam joined the jihad. Now how this might have come about is a very crucial policy to understand. It’s something we don’t talk about. It isn’t acknowledged.

But once you start burrowing into this via Benghazi, I think we have a chance, at least, to bring the facts to light. I believe it’s come about through a willful reckless disregard and/or a suppression of Islamic theology, of Islamic jihad, of Islamic jihad to spread shariah. And whether this is from out and out Islamic sympathies or from negligence, from ignorance – excuse me, pardon me – such a reckless disregard of the Islamic factors has paradoxically permitted our policymakers to ally the United States with proponents of world Islam, which would be shariah, Islamic law, caliphate, which all of these things, it must be remembered, are the endgame of jihad. So I look at Benghazi and I see this policy having blown up in our faces. But so far, this is not part of our debate. But this is the very blindness – just to give you a very small example, that in the very first place, permits a United States diplomatic compound to be guarded from a barracks inside the walls by a local militia called the February 17^th Martyrs Brigade. This has been discussed, trip – you know, just falls off the lips trippingly, of congressional witnesses in the media, no one stops to explain, to consider, what does that mean? What is local militia? Andy just gave you a little bit of flavor of what the local militia pool might be in eastern Libya. And I will repeat that eastern Libya sent more fighters to kill and maim Americans in Iraq per capita than anyplace in the world. And it’s a quite intense difference between Libya’s numbers and Saudi Arabia’s numbers. I’ve forgotten my little graph today, but its well more – substantially more per capita than even Saudi Arabia. That’s the local. February 17^th Martyrs Brigade. What’s February 17^th? Well, February 17^th, most people will remember, is February 17, 2011, was the day of rage, so called, on which Benghazians kicked off the revolution against Gaddafi. But, February 17^th, 2006, is actually the day they were marking in 2011. This is a day that doesn’t enter into our consciousness. But it should. February 17^th, 2006 was the date of another day of rage when thousands of Benghazians left the mosques after Friday prayers and attacked the Italians consulate, burned it, the Italians had to be evacuated for fear of their lives. And this was done to punish Italy for the temerity of having a minister who went on Italian television to declare that freedom of speech was a cornerstone of Western liberty, that the Danish cartoonists at that moment the subject of tremendous pushback and rioting across the Islamic world for the Mohammad cartoons of a tiny newspaper in Denmark, that declared solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, and for this, he was fired the next day by then prime minster, Berlusconi. And I suggest, I argued, this was in compliance with Islamic law. Berlusconi was demonstrating that Italian – his Italian government – was under Islamic law and prohibited such criticism, prohibited such statements, you know, supporting freedom of speech, supporting Western liberty, but it wasn’t enough for Benghazi. Three days later, the Benghazis attacked the consulate.

So this is February 17^th. Now how about the martyrs? The martyrs are the eleven, twelve, about a dozen, Benghazians who were shot and killed by Gaddafi’s police guarding the Italian consulate. There was no loss of Italian life in this attack. There were martyrs to the cause, to the jihad against the West. And so, I mean, a normal person has to scratch his head and say, how could the United States allow the February 17^th Martyrs Brigade inside an American compound to guard American interests? That’s what we’re dealing with. But that is what we’re not dealing with because we don’t know this, we aren’t told this. Our leaders hide this and our press doesn’t seem to care. That’s an example. I could go through the same litany with another local militia, the Libya Shield, but maybe we’ll wait for the question and answer period. It’s even worse than the prominence of the February 17^th Martyrs Brigade. Benghazi, by the way, means City of Martyrs. So I mean you have to know the territory you’re in. So this is where we are. And the point that I would like to also make is that this was not some ad-hoc security engagement. That only – they couldn’t find anyone else to guard the compound. And they didn’t know better. This was policy. And we see this in the cables that have been released by the House government oversight committee from the regional security officer at the time, Eric Nordstrom, discussing the fact that this was State Department policy, to transition security to locals. So this wasn’t just, you know, what are you getting locally? This was a policy. And it wasn’t working, which is exactly why they were calling for Americans to come and help shore up the security that they knew was a shambles. So you have to wonder where this policy came from. And it didn’t begin in the spring of 2011 when Ambassador – not yet Ambassador Stevens, but Christopher Stevens was famously dropped into Benghazi to be point man to the so-called rebels in eastern Libya. It didn’t begin with the February 17^th2011 day of rage. I don’t know if it was in place. I would like to find more about the program that Gaddafi oversaw – his son oversaw to release scores of al-Qaeda members from Libyan prisons in 2010. I don’t know how much that America was involved in that. But I do know that our ambassador at the time was present at one of these ceremonies.

This policy was a long time coming and we know something about it from the cables – the cable flow released, thankfully released by WikiLeaks. I am actually a big fan of WikiLeaks, because our government has too many secrets. And this kind of policymaking should not be secret from us. I can’t speak to Stevens’ motivations in reading his cables. But I’m trying to track his policy and there are certain themes that emerge. And I would say the first set of cables, I would draw to your attention, were written in late 2007 and the first half of 2008. And they related – they were not only by Stevens, there were some other diplomatic personnel from the embassy in Tripoli. Stevens was not the ambassador, but he was a high diplomat. And they were tracking the well being of two released Guantanamo detainees, who had been repatriated to Libya to go into Libyan prisons. One of them is very interesting to us because Andy just mentioned his name. His name is Sufyan Ben Qumu. And he was picked up off the field – out of the field in 2002 by the Americans in Afghanistan, Pakistan area. He was known to be – or discovered to be – an al-Qaeda member, a Libyan Islamic fighting group member, which was the al-Qaeda affiliate at that time. He was also with bin Laden in Sudan. He was in the training camps in Afghanistan, you know, down the line. And these cables track the well-being of – there was another man, but I haven’t found links on him yet, so I’ll concentrate on Ben Qumu, but they track what the prison life was like, whether they’re getting coffee or tea, how much exercise, family visits. Great interest in his well being in getting visits to, you know, some kinds of monitoring of their prison term. It’s very strange. No real explanation lies in these cables as they’re written. It’s just you notice two, maybe even more, cables that I’ve looked at that, over time, tracking what’s going on with Ben Qumu. Now, he was released as part of the reconciliation when these jihadists promised not to be violent anymore and they were released and all of them were out by 2010. And he later became a leader of the February 17^th revolution in eastern Libya.

Now when you think about Stevens coming back to Libya in February – in the spring of 2011, it’s almost impossible to imagine he would not have had some dealings with this man and those dealings need to be revealed. We need to find out what American policy was toward an al-Qaeda leader like Ben Qumu. Who, kicker, is now the leader of Ansar al-Sharia. Which is thought to have – believed to have led the attack on the US compound in September. So, I mean, the tragedy, the irony, the outrageousness, is just mind-boggling. But I would hazard that no one here has read this before because it has not – it has not been reported. And the links have not been made. And yet they are online, available to any reporter who’s spending time looking at this, and any policymaker as well. The second set of cables, the other set of cables I wanted to bring to light, had to do with Stevens’ own interest in eastern Libya in 2008, this is right after the US discovered a cache of documents that showed that the Libyans were sending more per capita fighters. And what he understood with his cable work and with his footwork in eastern Libya was that jihad was a cultural norm, that these people were proud of sending these fighters into Iraq. And yet by the end of this series of cables, he has decided to decouple this Islamic imperative to fight and insert the “Die Hard in Derna” theme and sort of de-Islamize the entire motives of this area, to sort of take Islam out of their culture. It’s so important to their culture and yet his recommendations, going back to the States, was we start to see this suggested, maybe if we got rid of Gaddafi, everything would be all right. And so I wonder if maybe the Arab Spring policy really had its beginnings in 2008 in eastern Libya with diplomats such as Stevens. I wouldn’t single him out as being the single architect, but you start seeing the groundwork laid. This needs much more work.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: What I’m going to do is talk about an outlier Benghazi issue, the issue always referenced in Benghazi, but never actually pursued in its own right, and that has to do with the issue of the YouTube clips. And how do you explain a near pathological obsession with trying to hang it up on there. And I think it’s very important because I think that the underlying issues surrounding the need to support the YouTube narrative is every bit a threat to the national security of this United States as what happened in Benghazi. And it needs to be understood in its own right. Joseph Piper wrote a philosophy tract back in the 1970s. He was a German philosopher. And it was called “The Abuse of Language and the Abuse of Power” where he tried to explain to Germans in the 1970s how when the Nazis abused language they came to be able to abuse power. And it’s very important because one of the things he pointed out is once the current social norm – people’s understanding of reality is based upon what he called a pseudo-reality, you almost have to treat the truth as propaganda just to get it heard. And I would like to point out, we are there, okay? The things that are being discussed here. Andy went deep, so you’re not going to find that on YouTube. Diana went and did some research on this. But the underlying facts to almost a hundred percent of what we say is obviously true to anybody who makes a decision to actually research this. There is not some major competing issue on facts between what we’re saying and what the other side says. One is templated against a pseudo-reality that is not real but enforced. And the other is true to the exclusion of what is being told in that pseudo-reality. And I think that’s very important to keep in mind.

On the 23^rd of September, on “60 Minutes”, everybody heard the comments about the bumps in the road. And president Obama got a lot of flack for the term bumps in the road, but nobody picked up what he said afterwards. He said, there are going to be a lot of bumps in the road. In a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam. The one part of society that has been completely controlled by the government. I actually agree with president Obama on that comment. I would like to point out al-Qaeda has said their exclusive organizing principle is Islam. As defined in Islamic law. The Muslim Brotherhood has said their exclusive organizing principle is Islam as defined in shariah law. And of course the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation says their exclusive organizing principle is Islam. I say that I agree with this, in fact, I agree with it so much so that I made it the point of my thesis in 2007 to point out that those national security individuals with responsibility for War on Terror issues who do not know that organizing principle are guilty of malpractice. Or are looking at malpractice. In fact, there is simply no comprehending what’s going on without reference to that. And yet here we have it. The one thing that you can be run out of government for is to dare to talk about the one organizing principle that makes everything make sense. And why am I bringing that up? Without this knowledge, you can hardly understand the policies and objectives of the most powerful driving forces in the Islamic world, by which I’ll say two of them. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. I will tell you, these entities are almost off the discussion boards in almost every government entity. And if they’re not, they’re propagandized understandings of it. In fact, the article to be written one day will be the article that talks about the two most powerful people in the world that nobody knows anything about. And yet they are clearly driving everything from the Arab Spring to other events, the YouTube clip. And that is Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu – I’m sure many of you are saying, who? And yet he is the head of the OIC. And a man named Yusuf Qaradawi. He is the person calling the shots on the Arab Spring. He’s called the shots on all of them. And, you know, here’s how hard it is to find that out. Do a Google search. Do a Google search. But because their names aren’t there, because their driving force is actually Islam, everything they see seems incoherent. It will be incoherent. The enemy plans to win the war by making it not understand their organizing principle. So this brings up the whole point of talking about the YouTube clip. These entities, the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood remain opaque so long as we don’t understand who they are or what they represent. And we will never really be able to get the full sense of what the YouTube clips are about. As of course everybody’s heard, the Benghazi event was blamed on the YouTube – the clips. I’ll just talk – I’ll use the word clip.

Okay, I’m going to treat this as a completely severable event. Although people can get into questions about whether they are severable, I think at this point we could say, you had the YouTube incident that started at the Cairo embassy on September 11^th. And then you had the events at Benghazi. And for this purpose, let’s keep them as severable. Let’s take a look. On September 11^th, at the beginning of the day, I believe the Cairo embassy was closed with a posting saying, the embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims as we cut off efforts to offend believers of all religions. We firmly reject the actions of those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. I’m one of those people who believe that you do not have the right to make a – do something, make a bad decision. You actually don’t have any rights at all. And of course, I don’t want to get into whether people – what people think about the YouTube clip itself, I would just get – I’ll just make the point that if the Supreme Court says Nazis can march in Skokie, if the Supreme Court says that some artists can put a crucifix of Christ in a vat of urine, then I’m really not prepared to hear issues about other people’s feelings. I really am not. That is whether I like it or not or whether I agree with it or not, that’s the law of the land. So I think it really means something that our State Department is putting out a message that runs counter to the First Amendment free speech right of an American, who’s actual message I don’t actually personally even have to agree with to make that point. I’m told that when the day of – when the protest happened in front of the Cairo embassy, it was a regular Egyptian soiree. The relatives of both the Blind Sheik and Zawahiri, the number two in al-Qaeda, showed up.

The very next day, the president of the UN commented on the events and nothing about – nothing about what was going on at Benghazi made it. What did he say? He condemns and deplores in the strongest terms any acts of defamation of religions and religious symbols and he said that such acts amount to – to incitement to hatred and xenophobia. And could lead to international instability. He went on to say, that states have to intensify international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding amongst civilizations. So to prevent indiscriminate targeting of religions and cultures. By reaffirming their rights to freedom of expression, he calls for the observance of obligations in accordance with international law. Obligations to curb freedom of speech. Okay? Now, clearly, he’s talking about what was the topic of the YouTube clip. Now, interestingly enough, the 14^th of September, no less than twenty-six embassies, there were no less than twenty-six events around the world, including, I think, sixteen or seventeen embassies in the Muslim world, where there were protests having to do with this video clip. Now with this same narrative, with the same words, with the same directives. Now, we are going to be told that it was completely, you know, coincidental. Spontaneous. That these things exploded all over the world at the same time, same place, on the same message. I will be one of those people who will tell you of course this was choreographed. Of course it was planned. And the major topic of discussion coming up later in the month of September at the UN, in the General Assembly, was going to be defamation of religion. And I will argue that we really need to understand that. And I just read what the president of the UN said. So I want to ask you if it doesn’t sound very familiar with – remember when I talked about the OIC? 2005? Well, in 2005, the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation put out something called a Ten Year Plan. And the Ten Year Plan was to make all references to subordinate all freedom of speech law in the world, subordinated to Islamic laws and Islamic notions of slander. How many people are aware of that? Raise your hand. Okay. Because let’s just compare what the – what the president of the UN said.

And see what the OIC said. From paragraph three of the combating Islamophobia, which was released in 2005. The UN is to endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia and to call upon all states to enact laws countering it, including deterrent punishment. That means that you, an American citizen, inside the United States, could be punished for defaming what – for saying something Islam deems is inappropriate for it. How many people think that that would be a catastrophic breach of the First Amendment? Okay. So this whole thing we saw with the YouTube clip was a rerun of the cartoon crisis in Europe in 2006. Where you had a day of rage followed by various statements, all of the messages choreographed. And almost none of it, by the way, almost none of it coming from al-Qaeda. It was OIC and MB voices. Okay? It is today. So it’s also just like the Pope’s Regensburg speech back in 2006, remember? Day of rage. You can’t say that. So this defamation of Islam, day of rage cycle, is something that we have seen repeated over and over again. Of course, we saw it twice in Afghanistan with the Koran burning. What is the objective of these days of rage? To get US leaders and US thinkers to get so intimidated by Islam that they will pass laws to curb defamation of Islam as a crime. Are we not there? Just think about that. So the OIC’s ten year program of action seeks to subordinate free speech including the First Amendment to Islamic notions of free speech. As bad as Benghazi is, and it was bad, it’s an attack on people and places and it’s an event – but the YouTube clip represents an attack on the integrity of the Constitution of the United States itself. And I will tell you, if it is breached, the Constitution is done Cause our constitution cannot stand a breaching of the First Amendment. That’s why it is the First Amendment. And that’s why understanding the YouTube clip is more important than Benghazi. And I fully believe Benghazi is very important. But it was so important that the YouTube clip narrative follow through that it seems to me that maybe the Obama administration was willing to take the hit on Benghazi. But I keep asking myself, how did they prioritize their effort that they stuck to this? So the OIC has been promoting this UN resolution to get the ten year plan passed for a long time.

This last iteration was resolution 1618, okay? They watered down the language so it would be politically appropriate for the West and saw they could slide it through. The question isn’t is the OIC going to try to get to us through the UN? The troubling question is why did our State Department agree to work with the head of the OIC to make this a law, get this resolution passed in the UN with the clear intent of implementing it against US citizens? Cause that would be the follow line. Of course, on October 15^th – excuse me, on July 15^th – on July 15^th, 2011, our Secretary of State met with the head of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, remember, that’s the second time I’ve mentioned his name. The one you never heard of. And yet our Secretary of State, in his temple, agreed with him that she would use the best efforts of our State Department to seek passage of resolution 1618. But the OIC clearly states it reflects the implementation of their ten year plan. Okay? It was actually authored by them. Not only did Hillary Clinton agree to that, but she agreed – she agreed that she would use some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people won’t – will feel they have the support to do what we abhor. Does anybody – is anybody bothered that our State Department, our embassies, have been in the business of condemning an American’s free speech right to foreign entities? Agreeing with foreign entities that they will go after Americans in an extra-legal way to do this? Does anybody else have a problem with that? Does anybody else have a problem with the fact that our elected leaders on both sides of the aisle want to run from this? Because if they’re running from this, they’re running from the most sacred duty that they have and that is to support and defend the Constitution. And it’s to support and defend the Constitution.

The layers that make this ambiguous to people are layers that are only to ambiguate people who want to be confused. Because this is direct. The OIC announced it in their Ten Year Plan. They make it clear that resolution 1618 is it. And it would call for the subordination of the First Amendment in the United States. There is no ambiguity here. And we can’t allow our people to hide behind this. Because this is what we stand for. So but didn’t the YouTube clip – didn’t the guy who created the YouTube clip, wasn’t he subjected to peer pressure and shaming? How many people know he was convicted and sent to jail? Okay. Where is the ACLU on this? Anybody who wants to get – if anybody thinks this is not – he’s not in prison because of a First Amendment issue, I just don’t understand that. So what I would like to point out in conclusion, I will conclude, is that for those who find this to be new information, it may be time to question what you think you know about what’s going on in the Islamic world. And I will tell you, you should start with the Arab Spring. So concerned was certain members of Congress with this – and this is my concluding remark – Congressman Franks, as the chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, asked the assistant secretary, Tom Perez, whether the State Department would ever entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion. I mean, basically give effect to 1618. And Perez refused to answer, being asked this three times. So then I would just like to end this with the fact that this is not theoretical. It’s not something in the remote future. It’s happening now. Thank you.

FRANK GAFFNEY: I think that was a pretty extraordinary rendering of the problem. And I think we have circulated, if not we will before the program is over, some specific questions that we think are warranted coming out of both the analysis that you’ve just been treated to and any other information that’s available now. I encourage you also to look for a new film that is currently making its way I think through a distribution deal that hopefully will be available soon, a trailer for it can be found at silentconquest.com. And it picks up on a number of these points. In fact, I believe several of our speakers are featured in it. To help make the case that this business in Benghazi is not an isolated incident. It is very much of a piece with the larger problem that we’ve been addressing thus far. With that, I’ll be happy to open up the floor to questions. When you have a microphone presented, I would ask you to identify yourself and any organizational affiliation you may have. Let’s start right here.

QUESTION: Bill Murray. Religious Freedom Coalition. I can start with the ending. The same song ends the same way. Most of the conservatives, our conservative senators, our conservative groups, the only anger they had over Libya is that Libya wasn’t – the Libyan government wasn’t being overthrown fast enough and al-Qaeda wasn’t being installed quick enough. We now are in Syria and the biggest concern of our conservative senators and our conservative groups is that the secular government of Syria isn’t being overthrown fast enough and al-Qaeda isn’t being put in power quick enough. Now, you know, when both sides of the aisle want to put the two and a half million Christians in Syria, put their heads on the chopping block, so that they’re all killed, persecuted, and sent off, at what point do we stop supporting as conservatives anybody that has a gun that wants to overthrow somebody and start to look at who the hell they are?

DIANA WEST: I don’t think anyone – any of us would have anything to counter what you’re saying. Of course, it’s an outrage. I think that part of the problem is that these ideas and these problems, this notion of America supporting al-Qaeda is not discussed. It’s not admitted. You have to kind of read your own tea leaves or read what we write, which is just out there in the mainstream. And our candidate, our standard bearer of the Republican party last week who lost, did not bring these things up, didn’t enter into a debate, weren’t asked – this, in a sense, the Islamic prohibition on criticism of Islam is in effect. I’ve maintained that for more than a decade. We don’t talk about it because we can’t. We think we can’t. And I think that’s why we end up in this situation of serving al-Qaeda, serving the global caliphate, etceteras, and putting these governments in power.

ANDREW BOSTOM: Bill, we midwived shariah based constitutions in liberated Iraq, in liberated Afghanistan, we sat by idly as the Syrian Christian population was decimated in liberated Iraq. We had the case where the Vatican had to intervene to save a quote, unquote apostate in Afghanistan. This is a policy that we’ve had from the very beginning, certainly post 9-11, where we are willfully blind to the doctrine in these societies that prevails. And it prevails amongst the so-called moderates and amongst those who are more radical who, in essence, are really just more impatient to impose the shariah in its full forms.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: I’m just trying to think of – the power of ignorance is really extreme. I mean, when you take a look, what happens, one of the comments that has started to really grate on me is someone will say, I’ll say something and they’ll say, well, yes, that’s a real good man. Or that’s a real good woman. Meaning, they know them, they like them, they’ve gotten their sense of them. And they’re a really good person. And it’s grated on me because those really good people have been making decisions that have caused this country to suffer severely. It has caused people – it has caused the people under them to die. And they died because of their ignorance. And at a certain point, at what point does ignorance at the top level constitution sedition or constructively so? Because some of these people, they’re getting people killed. Now I have no doubt that when we talk to those conservatives, they’re going to give us this whole people – that, every bit as delusional as the left leaning argument is the one that has fixed on the conservative side. That everybody wants to have rights like Americans. This is the face of al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the OIC that categorically denies not only those rights, but the basis for those rights. So I think the thing about this is we really have to start being not nice about this. And saying, you know, not only did we knock out Gaddafi and install al-Qaeda, everything you needed to know about who they were, you could have done a Google search in real time. Not only that, but if you just read some of the newspapers and understand what they meant, you would have seen that Yusuf al-Qaradawi was the person who was launching these initiatives. So this is my way of saying for those conservatives, that’s it.

FRANK GAFFNEY: Let me just add one quick point, this ignorance is in part spawned by something that Steve alluded to, namely, the purging of those like him and for that matter others, both in uniform and out, and files and briefing materials and the like which has spoken the truth. So the ignorance is not simply accidental or a lack of diligence, it’s that we have submitted to the point where we’ve made ourselves blind. At, I think, a further example of our submission, more generally.

QUESTION (ARTHUR GREEN): I was in the Foreign Service. I served in Doha, the home base of Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. My question is for Mr. Coughlin. If the Brotherhood and the OIC are the building blocks of the jihadism, who are the NGOs in the international media who are the purveyors of the information?

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: Well, I didn’t really come prepared to talk about who those players are, but I think that you have an elite media. I think they have constructed a meme, a narrative. If the OIC was to come out and say, we’re going to impose Islamic law of slander on the non-Muslim world, people would say, get out of here. They were very aware – I have this little booklet, I brought it just in case something like this would come up. This is a book about the OIC written by the triple IT. The International Institute of Islamic Thoughts. A Muslim Brotherhood front group. And they were talking about the OIC in this book and it was written in 1988. You know, all the time we’re being told that the OIC – that the Muslim Brotherhood is a criminal organization, you just get this double message. Sheik Qaradawi has lived quite well in Doha. So it’s my way of trying to answer – so they knew in the 1980s that this word homophobia really caused people to reel back. Okay, so they created the term homophobia. And they thought they knew they couldn’t really get the West to buy off on Islamic law and the brutal suppression, but what they could do is mask their entire narrative in the postmodern meme. The diversity narrative. And then just put it in right after the word homophobia. Racism, sexism, transgender, blah, blah, blah. Homophobia, Islamophobia. And they knew that they would get the entire media to bite. Because I will say that, yes, I do believe that there are some very evil people who are very aware of what they’re doing. For example, I’m not convinced that Hillary Clinton knew what she was agreeing to when she agreed to that. I think she just thought it was another part of the diversity narrative. And that’s where you get to the point where you say, well, don’t you have a duty to know who these people are? All you have to do is go online to find it.

FRANK GAFFNEY: But it has to be said, if Hillary Clinton has, sitting at her right hand, as a person on whom she relies – don’t take my word for it, the Washington Post said so, for advice on matters involving the Arab world, the Middle East, a woman who has been tied personally as well as through her family to the Muslim Brotherhood for twelve years, that has to have some likely bearing on the decisions or at least the thinking that Mrs. Clinton has been doing in these matters. And that is not an isolated example as we hope all know. We have a course on this subject called muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com.

DIANA WEST: Frank, I just want to add one little tag team on that which is that, speaking of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s aide, over the summer, when this came to light, I wrote one of my – I write a syndicated column that used to appear in the Washington Examiner and I wrote about this, I reported on what was going on on the Hill with the congressmen and the denouncements by Senator McCain and the issue about Huma Abedin, and the Washington Examiner refused to run it. I don’t know exactly why, but it refused to run it and that’s how this works. You know, in terms of the suppression.

QUESTION (ADM. ACE LYONS): I’m chairman of the Center’s military committee. I want to go back to the issue we all seem to dance around. I want to know why the ambassador was there on the night of 9-11. And let me preface that by saying, look, we had the Blue Mountain security manager that afternoon say, hey, there’s something wrong. He puts out a message on his two radios and his cell phone. He bails out of Benghazi on a flight. Three hours before the attack, you have roadblocks, checkpoints set up that the Turkish counsel general had to go through to get to the consulate. Now nobody can tell me, he gets to the consulate for his meeting with Stevens and says, oh, by the way, I went through all your checkpoints, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. Why didn’t Stevens leave with the counsel general or why did he stay there? Pass my question to the panel here. Your wisdom on this.

DIANA WEST: It’s not knowable at this point. But there are many rationales, but it does – I’ve looked into it a little bit. I mean, I wonder why, first, I wondered whether as an ambassador he could have left. And I found out that he could. And in fact, you could say that there is – he bears some responsibility for the casualties that followed in not leaving that dangerous situation. We don’t know – we don’t know what the Turkish counsel and he met about. We do know that there was a serious CIA mission in Benghazi that may have seemed to him more important than their safety. Or going back to what I was trying to illustrate, he may have felt so comfortable with these people that he never thought something like this could happen to him. Because he knew them. And he had great affinity for them. And their cause.

FRANK GAFFNEY: Let me just add two other data points to the ones that Ace mentioned. One is that the folks in the compound knew that they were being surveilled the morning of the attack. Early in the morning as a matter of fact. And it prompted one of the victims, Mr. Smith, to write on – as you probably have seen – an online gaming site, that if we survived the night, I think it went on to say, we’ll be playing games again tomorrow, but there was reason to believe, as you say, Admiral, that there was something going down. Yes, sir?

QUESTION (BOB PETRUSAK): I’m a retired state prosecutor. And I’ve always been very interested in the trial of the Blind Sheik. His conviction for seditious conspiracy and in our failure of our government to follow up on that and pursue convictions of other persons involved in similar activity. And having heard Mr. Coughlin talk about sedition – mention the word sedition, and also talk about Islam as a strategy, I’m very interested in the question of whether or not we as a society should regard Islam or perhaps Islamism as a massive seditious conspiracy that is contrary to our law? Now, by Islamism, I mean, not the Muslim going to the mosque to pray. But the whole notion that society and politics should be controlled by Islam. And I believe I heard you, Mr. Coughlin, you mentioned Islam as a strategy, did I not – and I presume that’s what you mean? The whole notion that Islam should control society and politics?

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: I think what I was pointing out was when president Obama gave a speech about the fact that Islam was the single organizing principle that that is declared to be the single organizing principle by which the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and even the OIC say drives them. To which, I think you could take it to mean Islamic law. Now I don’t think we have to get into the hyper, you know, controversy of what Islam does or doesn’t stand for to point out that the Muslim Brotherhood explicitly states that their understanding of Islamic law requires them to wage jihad till the world’s been claimed for Islam. And when they make reference to Islamic law, they actually nail down real Islamic legal statements to say that. Now my experience has been not that people come up and come up with a competing argument or a, you know, different version of Islam. They try to shut down the debate. They don’t want it talked about. And I think one of the reasons is, is because there seems to be a super-tight fit between what the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda and the OIC says is Islamic law and what their doctrines say it is. And I have just always noticed that our moderate friends will say stuff like, well, this is just what I choose not to believe. Or if I brief somebody who – at very senior levels of our national security – and I will brief something to the effect, well, brief it to the point where it’s just locked down, we have the Muslim Brotherhood saying or al-Qaeda saying, we’re going to do it based on Islamic law.

In fact, this is Islamic law. And then we find a contemporary Islamic jurist saying that. We find a classical Islamic jurist saying that. And we see them both quoting the same hadith and the same Koranic verses for it. So what happens isn’t that they say, my gosh, you’ve nailed this down. This meets a burden of proof that basically will call for a summary judgment. No, they’ll say, well, I just choose not to believe that. What do you do? So I think the point of it is, we don’t have – this is a very important point to me – we don’t have to prove what is or is not true Islam although I think we can win this positively on that point. All we have to do is prove the enemy we fight says that’s the true Islam that they rely on to kill you. And so long as you have that right, you have what constitutes the basis of their threat doctrine. And the simple fact of the matter is, and there are people here who know me from historically, I have put a brief together that calls things in advance for years now. And it’s not just they kind of sort of happen the way we’re briefing years in advance. They happen exactly the way it’s briefed. And so we – the two issues need to be understood as separate. Cause it’s entirely conceivable, yet every bit as lethal, that the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda misinterpret Islamic law, but they’re still killing you. And therefore, you’re still dead. Okay? And you still have to defeat it. So there’s two questions there. And as a national security issue, the debate is resolved at the point at which you fix that doctrine, right or wrong, as the basis for a stated threat doctrine. Does that answer your question? And we can simply nail that down. It’s not just that you have the case with the Blind Sheik. You also have the Holy Land Foundation case. Where once you have the first conviction – you were a prosecutor, it’s pretty close, shooting fish in a barrel, getting the next round of prosecutions. I mean, there are complexities and stuff, but – and those were shut down. They were ready to go.

ANDREW BOSTOM: My real job is as an epidemiologist and so I’m very comfortable looking at data. And we have extraordinarily alarming data from the Muslim community in this country. And it’s not just recent data. It goes back even before 9-11. Detroit area mosques, there was a survey that 81 percent of respondents endorsed the application of shariah law where Muslims comprised a majority of the population. Now, that’s not a theoretical concern when you look at the behavior, the actual behavior, of the Dearborn community where they try and impose, you know, Islamic laws, sanctions, against proselytization, for example. And we’ve had notorious cases to that regard. The Center was involved in what I think was an outstanding – the only way you can do it – study of a representative sample of a hundred US mosques. And 81 percent of them were fomenting jihad. This is not a small number, 81 percent. You don’t have to be a biostatistician to understand 81 percent. We have the assembly of Muslim jurists of America. This is a mainstream teaching organization. Every year, it trains North American imams throughout the US and Canada. This organization, just go online and read the fatwas, read the advice they’re giving to Muslims that right in and ask questions about shariah related topics sanctioning punishment for blasphemy, sanctioning punishment for apostasy, seeking – speaking very disparagingly of other faiths, sponsoring female – supporting female genital mutilation. I mean, just go down the gamut of things that are quite offensive to us that are part and parcel of the shariah. This is a mainstream organization. There were just data that were published, it was a convenient sample. It wasn’t the perfect, random digit dial sample, but it was a convenient sample of six hundred Muslims that was published by Wenzel Associates in conjunction with World Net Daily, these Muslims – who, by the way, were of higher socioeconomic status and better education, so if anything, they should be more moderate by Western standards, 60 percent of them reject our First Amendment. These are data. These are not figments of people’s imagination. We have a serious problem.

QUESTION (DAN POLLACK): A couple of you pointed out that the leaders of the attack on the consulate was a graduate of our Guantanamo school for terrorists, you know, continuing education, I wanted to – looking at things from his point of view, I’ve often been struck by how it must seem to these Muslims who are dedicating their lives to damage the West and yet actions taken by the West seem to lend them support. Is there an element of this, I’ve often thought that back in the days following the ‘67 Arab/Israeli War, the Arab and the Muslim cause seemed on its hind legs cause they were losing. If anything, they seem more susceptible to losing once you start them on the losing path. And I think they interpret all of this bending over backwards by the United States and Europe to give them an advantage as God’s will and if we can only find some spots to tactically exploit this. I’m interested in each of your reaction to our actions that seem to empower them. And how that results internally in our enemies.

DIANA WEST: The first thing that comes to mind in terms of our empowerment of the Islamic world is the Islamization of our military forces in this past nearly decade of wars. And this should be of grave concern because the military has imbibed Islamic law as part of this counter-insurgency idea that was, of course, spearheaded by General Petraeus, CIA director Petraeus. As a way to make them like us. As a way to win them over, win hearts and minds, all of these phrases are apt. And what it has done is forced us to submit all the further. And when you have the United States military submitting, I don’t think they’re really stoppable until you cease and desist. I think the way Israel is being treated is another huge encouragement. If Israel goes down, I think Europe is next. And then us, or at the same time, I mean, these are very serious invitations to jihad. And we make it very easy for them. Again, because we have already entered into this deep submission.

ANDREW BOSTOM: I think the issue that Diana has focused on in the military is the lynchpin issue, in fact. Our – I experienced this firsthand. I was actually out in Ft. Leavenworth when Petraeus was still there. And having been quite familiar with the academy, you know, the medical school is an Ivy League medical school and my research, non-medical research, forced me to be on the campus a lot, it’s frankly insane what goes on there in terms of the bowdlerization of Islamic history and doctrine in any of the related courses. But in fact, that mentality is pervasive amongst the so-called academics that are recruited into our military institutions. With rare exceptions like Steve, who didn’t stay there. And actually knew what he was talking about and has predicted the failures of the policies. I mean, it’s turning reality on its head by, exactly what Steve said, creating this false reality. I could not believe, it happened in a formal lunch session, being with pseudo-academics out at Ft. Leavenworth who sounded like, you know, the most revolting drivel mongering leftists that I’ve had to deal with in the mainstream academy.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: So those who can’t teach at community college then go teach at US military academies or advanced military institutes. That’s a horrible thing to – I do know some very good professors, but sometimes you see the people kind of crowd the back of a room in a presentation, they’re kind of like, wow. If you look at a book called Reliance of the Traveler on the section on jihad, there’s a section that quotes the Koran and do not call for peace when it is you who have the upper hand. Okay? I want you to think if you’re that – why you wouldn’t think, you not only have won the war, but you’re in the process of rolling us up. Okay, it think that, you know, I think we’ve hit on it a couple of times, I was remiss maybe in bringing it up, it’s very easy for the Muslim Brotherhood to be successful over there when the people advising our senior leaders are the Muslim Brotherhood here. People like Mohammed Morsi joined the Muslim Brotherhood when he was going to the University of Southern California. Did you know that? Okay.

The number two guy in the Muslim Brotherhood, you know, maybe successor to Qaradawi, was the imam in Ohio, Hilliard, Ohio. The man who was teaching our troops at Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss before they deployed, Louis Safie, was the man that Qaradawi picked to run the Syrian – what was it called? The Syrian National Council. I mean, Steve, how do you know we picked him? Because it was in an article, lets be clear, translated from English to English, where they said so. That this stuff is just simply out there. And so when you know that you’re the people driving the train and you know that your senior leaders are so afraid to lose their job by not agreeing with them on something, you know, look at the COIN, look at the COIN where they decided that the preference for our combat forces in Afghanistan was going to be the protection of Afghan civilians. So it’s not to upset anybody when you had the pure homicide of our officers, green on blue, what was the solution? Not to talk about the fact that maybe the Karzai regime is penetrated. But to blame our soldiers for their own murder. So when you see that going on, when you take a look at our COIN and the COIN is based on satisfying the Afghans, formally and informally, where the Afghan government, based on the constitution we wrote formally subordinates to Islamic law, you really should see this type of activity as foreseeable. It’s certainly the normal consequence of subordinating your COIN to a government and to a people who subordinate themselves to a form of law that sees you as always being wrong and it always being your fault.

FRANK GAFFNEY: Let me make one additional quick addition to this litany. And literally, we could spend the afternoon enumerating these. But just to this point, imagine the takeaway from these Islamists around the world, the jihadists, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military officer of the United States, uses a press conference to excoriate a distinguished serving officer teaching at one of these military institutions. For having offended Islam. In his brief. Ruining the man’s career as well as sending an unmistakeable signal to the rest of the cohort that don’t even think about doing that. Not just the teachers, but the students. This is submission. And I think there are people on this panel who know the Koran a lot better than I do, but that phrase keeps coming back to me, make them feel subdued. Part of this dhimmitude phenomenon and there’s o question that you behave as we are, submissively, you are incentivizing them do more of that making us feel subdued through violence among other means.

DIANA WEST: Well, just to add – to bring it back to Benghazi, the same Joint Chiefs chairman made a phone call to pastor Terry Jones on September 12^th, asking him to withdraw his, essentially, movie blurb, his support for the YouTube clip, innocence of Muslims. Actually made a phone call to an American citizen asking him to withdraw his opinion of a creation of another American citizen or someone protected by our laws.

QUESTION (RON THOMPSON): I’m a graduate of Georgetown law. I sent you a paper recently after you gave me your business card. I’m a former member of the DC bar. And I still, to take what Bob said a step further, there’s still one step that hasn’t been taken, and as a lawyer, I’d like to offer this, I would like – because I think we’re hypnotized by the word religion, and I heard a couple of things said today, once single word by you, Dr. Bostom, that was a little bit of a red flag, you talked about unreformed Islam, implying that there’s some reformed Islam that would be a good thing, which I have trouble with, so my question is, is it possible – and I’m trying to write a paper on this – that Islam is not a religion for purposes of the word religion in the First Amendment? Because there are six elements to the First Amendment. And the first one, the first wording of the amendment talks about establishment of religion. Well, as I understand the definition of Islam, somebody correct me if I’m wrong, it’s inseparable from being the established religion or if it’s established, so I’ll repeat – and the other five elements, which I won’t take time to go through, for the First Amendment, is it possible to argue, take sort of a total intellectual offensive, and argue that Islam is not a religion for the purposes of how that word is used in the First Amendment of the Constitution?

ANDREW BOSTOM: There is a historical record which would argue in your favor. That Islam, of all the major faiths, and I’m not just talking about Judaism and Christianity, I’m talking about Buddhism, Hinduism, etceteras, has found it impossible, till now, to separate religion from state. It’s simply found it impossible. So I guess you could say it’s a theoretical possibility, but – and some Muslim states, you know, Ataturk tried his experiment. It was a brutal experiment. And he really wound up substituting a form of Turko-centric racism for Islam. Now it had some tangible benefits. Certainly for Muslim women. It didn’t help the minorities at all. Didn’t help them a wit. Became something of an ally, some would argue, in terms of the struggle against communism. But I think your point is very well taken. A wonderful anthropologist who was not an Islamophobe, Gelder, after struggling with the study of Islamic societies from the perspective of an anthropologist wrote a book that was actually fairly well received in the early 1980s by Muslims. Ten years later, he concluded that Islamic societies, based in 1991, compared to a hundred years earlier, had actually regressed. And he said, as a respected anthropologist, he had never seen societies that were so resistant to secularization. And this was his final lament on the subject.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: I think that one of the reasons the book Shariah: The Threat was written was because if you use the word Islam, you’re talking about the whole thing. If you focus on just shariah, you’re raising the point that the point at which Islam intersects with the Constitution, it’s the point at which it’s not a theological issue, it’s a legal issue. And in that regard, I think that there’s a very real strategy to always put Islam on you as an exclusively – in exclusively First Amendment terms. Islam itself doesn’t actually define itself purely as a religion. It defines it as a complete way of life governed by Islamic law, which it defines as the law of the land. Now the books I get on shariah don’t refer to itself as religion, they refer to themselves as law, and they make it clear they mean the law of the land. One of the things I’d like to point out is when you decide to go down the road to look at this, you read their law pure, like you were doing comparative law. And you don’t read into what they say anything that comes from your Western legal or Western religious understanding of things. You read it as they say it. Now, I think it’s very important – I try to get people to really argue this strictly from the perspective of not the First Amendment, but Article 6 of the Constitution. This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. And at every point down the line where Islamic law runs counter to that principle, it folds. Okay? And that becomes a unilateral decision. And it’s not up for, you know, people can make a decision whether that’s too hard for them to live in this country. I’m not asking for that. But I think that people who allow that to be folded, who are under their own oath to the Constitution, are letting it slide. And I think it’s just very important, cause I do think, yes, you can make that argument. They certainly don’t want you to make that argument. By they, I mean, the Muslim Brotherhood and groups like that.

QUESTION (REV. LOU SHELDON): Thank you, Frank. And I want to commend all of the speakers. They’ve done an excellent job of telling us how close to our backside these alligators are. And second, I think I’d like to hear comments from you, where do we go from here? Do we just go home and cry? [LAUGHTER] Do we go into recovery? Or are there some kind of marching orders that you can give? Because we know we might not necessarily have a true friend at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or in the Department of State or other places and all them things that have been mentioned about those that did stand up and be counted. But the time has come that we’ve got to do this, because you can hear the chains rattling just down the stairs from this building.

DIANA WEST: Yes, well, it’s always an important question and it is a hard question to answer. Except insofar as speaking out, being unafraid, having no fear in terms of discussing this and meeting this, and also my concrete wish would be that we could – we could early retire the senior leadership of the United States military. Because they are at the point where they are so beholden to these Islamic norms that they have put our troops in uniform in great jeopardy and we have lost many lives because of it.

ANDREW BOSTOM: Far be it for me to put a Panglossian gloss on this, but frankly, again, when I look at polling data, I think the American public, despite all the obfuscation, despite the fog machine, despite the apologetics, I sense that they understand that there’s a very serious problem. Rasmussen – I know he’s in ill repute now, maybe because of the election, but he wasn’t that far off. He’s published polling data within the last year that shows that most Americans and 63 percent believe there’s a fundamental conflict between Islam and Western Civilization. That there’s a complete rejection of the shariah in another set of polling data, which was actually a bipartisan poll of Pat Caddell and John McLaughlin, thirteen to one, Americans reject any application of shariah in the United States. Very few Americans are sanguine about the Arab Spring. You know, 70, 70 percent plus are not the least bit sanguine about it. I think we have to find representatives who will stand up and speak to a preexisting constituency.

STEPHEN COUGHLIN: You know, when I first started having troubles making these briefings, I didn’t realize I was out on a limb doing them inside the Pentagon. But it needs to be made very clear that the purging of the language in my issue started when I was still – when Bush was still the president. You might want to talk about this administration, how we don’t have a friend there, I think the real possibility is we only have the illusion of friendship in the other administration. And in fact, there’s a part of me that believes that Benghazi became something of a kind of a harbinger to people, not just because of Benghazi and the election, but for people who want their presidents to actually believe in something. His decision to play the calculating calculations that caused him not to say something would be the same ones that caused a person who really believed in the integrity of this country and standing up on something to take a stand.

And so I think at a much – even separate from Benghazi itself, was the fact of, you know, it seems to me that the Republican party today stands for taping together a whole bunch of constituencies. And throwing them a bone and not meaning any of it. And then, you know, telling them to take a ride if they don’t like it. So I would like to say that I think that what to do, I think that Andy’s right. I think that there is clear evidence when polling is taken, that the public is aware of this issue and they’re growing in numbers in terms of what they think and what they see, despite the fact of what you hear. So I think people have to get smart. And I think they have to get mad. And they have to realize that, yes, you’re going to get your five thousand votes from a Muslim Brotherhood movement, but we’re going to make it clear to you that you’re going to lose a hundred thousand votes because of it. Because the Constitution is not negotiable. And that’s just the way it is. And I think that people really have to – when I say get smart, not just get smart knowing the issue, but get smart in getting your friends informed. And getting informed in a credible way. And not say things that cause you to look like a fool. Make sure you know what you’re saying. These people will attack. They attack fast, they attack hard. Every congressperson I’ve ever met who thought, well, we know, we’re politicians, we know what it is, and the opened up their mouth, and then got hit, and they didn’t see it coming. And they run for cover. And I don’t mean this to disparage anybody who may think I’m talking about them, because I may not be talking about them, but my whole point here is, this – the other side doesn’t look at this as a political game. They look at it as war. Okay? And you need to understand that this is a winner take all kind of thing.

FRANK GAFFNEY: This is a perfect point on which to conclude. I must tell you that I’ve learned so much from these folks, not just today, but through their writings and through my interactions with them, and we try to distill some of it down and that course that I mentioned earlier, free online video course called Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within and the entire tenth part of the course, building, I hope, on what Steve has admonished us to do, namely, to become knowledgeable about these threats, is devoted to what we do about it. It’s very practical in terms of instruction. It talks about what we can do as individuals. It talks about what we can do as members of groups. Like those represented here. And it talks about what we have to do as citizens of this country. And I hope that it will be something that both those of you here in this room will take to heart and those of you joining us through the miracle of live streaming will also take a look at. Because, to the extent that you do indeed take away from these kinds of comments not only more questions that have to be addressed and hopefully will be, especially if we’re demanding that they be addressed on Capitol Hill in the next few days, but that we as people who love this country have to do what our predecessors have done before us, which is insure it survives for the next generation. And that will not be done if we sit passively by as our freedoms are being eroded and ultimately destroyed by people who, as Steve has said, think they are at war with us. So with that, I want to thank all of you for being here, those who’ve joined us via the internet and most especially, if you will join me please in thanking this extraordinary panel.

Well done. Thank you all.

Shariah Compliant Finance and Financial Jihad

June 13, 2012Christopher Holton

Christopher Holton delivered the following presentation, "Shariah Compliant Finance and Financial Jihad: What America Needs to Know," on Capitol Hill. He was introduced by Lisa Piraneo of Act for America:

Christopher Holton is Vice President for Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. He directs the Center’s Divest Terror Initiative and Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program.

He has been involved in legislation in 20 states to divest taxpayer-supported pension systems from foreign companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Since 2008, Holton has been the editor-in-chief of the Shariah Finance Watch blog (http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org).

In 2005, Holton was a co-author of War Footing, published by the US Naval Institute Press. Holton’s work has also been published by National Review, Human Events, American Thinker, Family Security Matters, BigPeace, World Tribune, WorldNetDaily, Newsmax and The Hayride.com.

Before joining the Center, Holton was President of Blanchard and Company, a $200 million per year investment firm and editor in chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit.

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A PDF TRANSCRIPT OF THE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPTION]

CHRIS HOLTON: SHARIAH COMPLIANT FINANCE AND FINANCIAL JIHAD

[BEGIN FILE]

LISA PIRANEO:

– started right now. I’d like to thank everyone for coming today, especially Hill staff. I know that even when your bosses are out of town, it’s still really crazy in your individual offices and I appreciate you setting aside some time to come and talk about this very important issue, shariah finance or Islamic finance. This is something that is very much in place around the nation, particularly on Wall Street it’s very much in existence. But it really isn’t well known at all, definitely not without – not through the American communities as well as up on the Hill. It’s just not really an issue that folks know a lot about, so I think that’s why it’s very important that you all have come here today to set aside an hour of your time to listen to this report and discussion. So without further ado, I’m going to introduce our guest speaker, Christopher Holton, from the Center for Security Policy. This is an event that the Center for Security Policy is doing together with Act for America. I’m Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations for Act for America. And Chris will be able to really discuss in depth and in detail a lot about this issue, so I’m glad to have him here again today. Christopher Holton is Vice-President of Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. He directs the Center’s Divest Terror Initiative and Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program. He has been involved in legislation in twenty states to divest taxpayer supported pension systems from foreign companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and the Syrian Arab Republic. Since 2008, Chris has been the editor-in-chief of the Shariah Finance Watch Blog. In 2005, he was a co-author of War Footing, published by the US Naval Institute Press. Holton’s work has also been published by National Review, Human Events, The American Thinker, Family Security Matters, Big Peace, World Tribune, World Net Daily, News Max, and thehayride.com. Before joining the Center, Chris was President of Blanchard and Company, a two hundred million dollar per year investment firm, and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit. So without further ado, I give you Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy. Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

How can something be called shariah compliant finance? I mean, after all, shariah is a code that has been around for a thousand years almost now. There weren’t stock markets and bond markets and things like that back then. What is shariah finance? Well, the fact of the matter is, is that shariah finance is not something that you’ll find in the Koran. Or the hadith. It is something that was man-made. It really had its genesis as recently as the 1940s. A guy named Abul Mawdudi essentially invented it. He was an Islamic philosopher born in India, eventually went to Pakistan. And his whole goal was to insulate the Islamic world from the Western Civilization. At that time, Western Civilization, through colonialism, was, at least in Mawdudi’s opinion, inflicting itself on the Islamic world. He thought the solution to that was a return to an Islamic way of life. He conceived of the concept of Islamic economics and a concept under which Muslims would do business with each other in an Islamic way to insulate themselves from the economic imperialism, as he called it, of the Western Civilization at the time. Particularly Britain. Also France, and to a certain extent, Germany and other countries that had colonies and interests in the Islamic world. Nothing much happened with that. In the 1950s, the famous Muslim Brotherhood philosopher, Sayyid Qutb, began to write about the concept of Islamic economics. He developed it a little bit more and developed it in such a way that we – that the Islamic world could insulate itself from Western colonialism by using a system of Islamic economics. But again, though he developed it a little bit more, nothing much happened on the ground with regard to the concept. Nothing really happened until the mid 1970s. In the mid 1970s, everything changed for a couple of reasons. Number one, the Arab oil embargo and the subsequent increase in the price of oil in 1973 as a result of the Yom Kippur War really enriched Saudi Arabia. And as a result, you started to see in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and in Sudan the development of large Islamic banking institutions who did business according to Islamic principles. So this was a man-made phenomenon. It was not – it’s not rooted in any actual verses in the Koran. But it was invented by men. It really took off in 1979 with the Islamic revolution in Iran. In fact, the Islamic revolution in Iran gave birth to a myriad of Islamic financial institutions in Iran and one of the dirty secrets of shariah compliant finance to this day is that Iran dominates the world of shariah compliance. You can read all about shariah compliant finance on the internet from what the purveyors of shariah compliant finance say and they won’t mention Iran a whole lot. They don’t like to talk about it.

But the fact is, you can add up everybody else’s shariah compliant finance – financial instruments under management and they don’t add up to what Iran has under management. Absolutely dominates the world of shariah compliant finance. Which should tell you something. Six out of the top ten shariah compliant financial institutions in the world are state owned Iranian banks. Who happen to be under US and economic union sanctions for terrorism financing and for financing activities in support of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs in Iran. So those who call shariah compliant finance ethical investing may want to rethink that. Just in view of the fact that the largest shariah compliant financial institutions in the world are under sanctions for things that I don’t think you and I would consider very ethical. Like supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, for example. So why is shariah compliant finance an issue, though, in the West and in the United States today. The fact of the matter is, is that shariah compliant financial industry has absolutely poor standards of disclosure and transparency as compared to Western standards of disclosure and transparency when it comes to financial operations. And those standards of transparency and disclosure are directly related to issues involving national security and terrorism financing. And that’s what has to be investigated. And what – and the problem is, is that US policymakers, US regulators, and Wall Street in particular, are not equipped to research those items. I’ll give you a few examples right from the start. You know, the main problems with shariah compliant finance are lack of disclosure and transparency. From the very start, you have the fact that shariah compliant finance is usually not referred to as shariah compliant finance. It’s usually referred to as Islamic finance or Islamic banking. That’s a euphemism for shariah compliant finance. Because the purveyors, the financial jihadis, the purveyors of shariah compliant finance know that shariah has very bad implications for people in the West.

They know that shariah itself is a system that Westerners are very suspicious of. So they choose to avoid the use of the term shariah at all. So it’s shariah compliant, but you won’t hear them say that very often. They will just say, well, we invest according to Islamic principles without defining what that is. But the main problem is, is that they do not disclose what shariah is. Right from the start. The very basis of this program is something that is being concealed. If you look in most of the prospectuses for shariah compliant financial institutions and instruments, mutual funds and what have you, they’ll very briefly sometimes mention shariah. One shariah adviser that I was in the presence of at one point, when asked to define shariah, his response was, it’s the path on which we walk. And that was it. Now can you imagine that as being disclosure in a prospectus? For anything other than shariah compliant finance in Western Civilization? That’s no disclosure at all. The path on which we walk means absolutely nothing obviously. The problem is, is that shariah is of material interest to investors. Shariah as a system, as a broad overall system, not just shariah compliant finance. You cannot divorce shariah compliant finance from shariah. It is embedded in shariah. The purpose of shariah compliant finance is to promote shariah. Shariah compliant finance would not exist if it did not exist to promote shariah. This was brought force very forcefully in 2009 at the World Islamic Economic Forum in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. Where there was a meeting of the finance ministers of most of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. At the time it was known as the Organization of Islamic – of the Islamic Conference. A bloc of fifty-seven nations in the UN. Their finance ministers got together in Kuala Lumpur and at the keynote address from the finance minister from the host nation of Malaysia, he encouraged the shariah finance industry to keep conducting its dawa operations. Well, what does dawa mean? Dawa means missionary work. They look at this as a form of missionary work to promote shariah and Islam. You cannot get away from that. Because of that, it has to be disclosed what shariah is and that is not being done at this point.

Not only are they not even talking about shariah, they’re not even mentioning it. So the lack of transparency and the lack of disclosure with regard to shariah is the first problem when it comes to shariah compliant finance. But it’s more than that. We can get into the nuts and bolts now. Beyond the overarching issue of shariah, we get down into the nuts and bolts of shariah compliant finance. The next issue that we have with regard to lack of disclosure with regard to shariah compliant finance has to do with the shariah scholars who essentially run the industry. Number one, there are very few of them, so there are lots of conflicts of interest that are built up within the industry and with competing financial institutions. You’ll have a shariah scholar who’s on the shariah advisory board of a financial institution and on a shariah advisory board of one of their competitor’s financial institutions, which in most walks of life, that would be considered a conflict of interest that you just wouldn’t have. But because there is a shortage of shariah advisers – there’s only about two dozen of them who are really the most qualified to sit on shariah boards – and that’s the way it basically works. If you have a shariah compliant financial institution or entity or instrument, you set up a shariah advisory board of usually three or more scholars, although in some cases, it’s just one scholar, and what this guy’s job is to do – and they’re all guys, there’s no women – is to keep the institution or instrument between the shariah lines. This person gets to decide, you know, you can invest in this, you can’t invest in that. And, you know, there’s a lot more to it than just like avoiding interest. A lot of people think that shariah compliant finance is just about avoiding interest. And to individual Muslims, that may very well be the case. Somebody might be investing in shariah compliant finance to be a pious Muslim. But on the institutional level, and on the doctrinal level, that is not what shariah compliant finance is about, unfortunately. It’s about a lot more than that. And if you look at the shariah advisers, you’ll see why. We’ve done background research on so many of these shariah advisers. And come back with really disturbing stuff.

For instance, there’s a guy named Mufti Taqi Usmani. Mufti Taqi Usmani was a member of the Pakistani supreme court for many years. He retired and he essentially cashed in. He is now a shariah scholar, a shariah adviser on dozens of institutions in the West and also in the Islamic world and in Asia as a shariah adviser. Usually, he is the chief of a shariah advisory board of a financial institution. Well, he used to be the chief of the Dow Jones shariah advisory board. He was also the chief of HSBC’s shariah advisory board. He’s not anymore. And the reason he’s not anymore is because they found out a little bit about the guy’s background. Now, they found out about it kicking and screaming. They had to be told about it over and over again. They had to be beaten over the head with it. Investor’s Business Daily, I think, was finally the straw that broke the camel’s back. But there were several publications that revealed that this guy, number one, he came from a madrassa and he was an officer of the madrassa that gave birth to the Taliban. Now, kind of a red flag. [LAUGHTER] He wrote a book called Islam and Modernity and he wrote another book called What Is Christianity? And in those books, you can pull out passages from his writings in which he said that Muslims in the West have a duty to rise up in jihad against their Western neighbors as soon as they’re strong enough to do so. Lots of stuff like that. He has written fatwas declaring whole sects of Islam to be apostates, resulting in what amounts to genocide of those sects of Islam within Pakistan. He is an evil man. Once this was revealed, HSBC and Dow Jones removed him from their shariah advisory boards. But keep in mind, he was the chief of their advisory boards. This stuff wasn’t that hard to find out. They could have found this stuff out if they had done any due diligence on this guy. All right? Now, when HSBC got rid of him, who do you think they replaced him with? His son. [LAUGHTER] So here we have a case where you’d got a really creepy guy with ties to jihadists controlling money. On a major – for a major financial institution in the West. And he’s still on the board of dozens of these institutions. He’s also the chief shariah adviser to the accounting and auditing standards organization for the entire shariah compliant finance – financial industry. He is perhaps the most powerful shariah adviser in the world and he is a complete jihadist. I’ve put out a dossier on him with more details than what I provide – than what I provide in this speech in your packet.

I’ll talk about a second shariah adviser who you’ve probably heard of. Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He’s been in the news relatively recently because he’s a famous Egyptian shariah scholar. He is probably the most prominent Sunni shariah scholar in the world. He’s the ideological mentor, at this point, for the Muslim Brotherhood. He was exiled to Qatar for thirty years from Egypt. He recently moved back to Egypt when Mubarak was taken out of office. And he has been on the shariah advisory boards of many financial institutions, including from 1988 to 2001, a bank called Al Taqwa. This bank was based out of the Bahamas. And it was associated with a real estate firm in northern Virginia named BMI. And what they were doing was they were conspiring to take a portion of their proceeds – and we’ll get to how this works in a minute – and send it to one of seven jihadist terrorist groups around the world. So this whole idea of their being a nexus between shariah compliant finance and some terrorism financing is not a fantasy, it’s not a theory, it’s actually been done. It’s been done in several cases, and this is one of them and it happened in the United States. Cause it involved a real estate firm in northern New Jersey. Bank Al Taqwa and BMI were shut down by the US Treasury Department and, of course, the shariah – the chief of the shariah advisory board was this guy Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He’s also the shariah adviser – chief of the shariah advisory board for Qatar Islamic Bank and Qatar International Islamic Bank. And if you look at those two banks, those are the two largest Islamic banks outside of Iran in the world. And this guy’s the shariah adviser to them. He is forbidden from entering the United States and Great Britain due to his ties to terrorism. He has written that suicide bombing against civilian targets in Israel is acceptable. He has called on all Muslims to support Hezbollah. He has stated that wife beating is absolutely permitted under Islam, but you’re not allowed to beat your wife if she enjoys it. He has endorsed female genital mutilation as a – which is euphemistically referred to as female circumcision. This guy is perhaps one of the most prominent shariah advisers in the financial world. He’s getting kind of old. He was a pioneer, though, when it was getting started. It could not have happened with Sheik Qaradawi’s help. So these are the kinds of people that we have sitting on shariah advisory boards of these shariah financial institutions. In many cases, if you look at the prospectuses of these shariah financial institutions, they don’t even mention that they have a shariah advisory board. And if they do, they don’t name them. In some cases, they might name them. Some cases, they might not. This is something that needs to be disclosed. And in fact, it needs to be researched.

The fact that somebody like Usmani could penetrate HSBC and Dow Jones and only through public humiliation get kicked off of those boards and then, of course, replaced by his son has got to be, you know, one of the most cynical moves by a financial institution that I can ever recall. That’s something that needs to be looked at by regulators and policymakers. Because of the next phenomenon which is, to me, the big problem when it comes to shariah compliant finance. Under shariah compliant finance, 2.5 percent, or one-fortieth, of the assets of the financial instrument have to be donated each year to zakat. Now zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam. It is a system similar to tithing in other religions. It’s ostensibly to eliminate poverty in Islam and that’s a good thing. The problem is, is that if you look at the shariah law texts, if you look at the actual shariah law authorities, there are eight acceptable destinations for zakat. Number seven is listed as those fighting in the way of Allah. And then if you look at the definition of those fighting in the way of Allah, it is defined – that is defined as those who are engaged in Islamic military operations for which there is no payroll on the army – on an army roster. In other words, irregular warfare – they are to be given the zakat even if they’re wealthy. And this is – these are codes that were written six or seven hundred years ago. But I mean, they could have been written by Osama bin-Laden twenty years ago. And then it goes on to say that families of those who are fighting in the way of Allah are to be supported as well with this zakat. In other words, if you’re a suicide bomber and you blow up a cafe in Tel Aviv, your family gets taken care of by rich Saudis or Saddam Hussein, which is what was going on throughout the 1990s. That is the system of zakat as defined by shariah law.

Now 2.5 percent of the proceeds from shariah compliant financial institutions go to zakat. That is very often not disclosed. In cases where it is disclosed, they will merely say something about it is donated to Islamic charities. And leave it at that. They won’t name the charities, they won’t talk about the activities of the charities. Now here’s the problem with that. Now fewer than eighty Islamic charities have been identified by the US Treasury Department or by British authorities or by the United Nations as funding jihad. Eighty. That’s not a small number. And the reason that so many Islamic charities fund jihad is because shariah law mandates that they do so. It is one of the eight destinations for zakat. This is not something that they think is wrong. So very many of these charities are involved in funding jihad. Now we saw it in Bank Al Taqwa with Sheik Qaradawi. It was absolutely happening with Bank Al Taqwa. And it was shut down because of that. Now more recently, our friend Sheik Qaradawi was named the head of a charity based out of Saudi Arabia called the Union of Good. The Union of Good is kind of like a United Way for Islamic charities. Depending on whose numbers you use, it’s either fifty-three or fifty-six or fifty-seven charities under the Union of Good. Okay? Now, the Union of Good has been designated a terrorist entity by the US Treasury Department. Because Qaradawi takes money from the Union of Good and he sends it to Hamas. I mean, that’s something that’s US government policy already. And this, remember, this guy who’s the head of this charity is also the chief shariah adviser to these big Islamic financial institutions. It’s not hard to connect these dots. There’s also twenty-seven other charities that have been designated by the US Treasury as terrorist entities. Including the three largest Muslim charities in the United States. The last one being the Holy Land Foundation. Which of course the offices of the Holy Land Foundation were convicted on all counts for material support of terrorism cause they were sending money to Hamas from right here in the United States. So we have a situation where there is no disclosure.

You can’t find any information on zakat and the charities that this money goes to in any of the publications from these Islamic financial institutions. And I’m here to tell you that Wall Street, they don’t want to fund terrorism, that’s for sure. But they’re so eager to win back some of the petrol dollars that we’ve sent overseas that they’re willing to take – take them at their word. You know, do these charities support terrorism? Oh, of course not. Okay. Good enough for me. And I’ve talked to people on Wall Street about this. I’ve talked to one person on Wall Street about this activity and he said, no, we’ve done the due diligence on shariah [MISPRONOUNCES WORD] [LAUGHTER] Interesting. How much due diligence did you do on shariah? [MISPRONOUNCES WORD] [LAUGHTER] So there isn’t – evidently, there’s not enough incentive for Wall Street to do due diligence on this. This is not a normal regulatory issue in that it’s got national security implications. There needs to be scrutiny of this. This is not something that we need to take lightly and say that this is big government getting in the way of Wall Street. That’s not what this is about. Cause a lot of people will say that all shariah compliant finance is, is a way for Muslims to invest according to their religious principles. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nobody should have a problem with that. The problem is with the doctrinal level of what shariah is and the fact that shariah is a totalitarian system. It is the opposite of a free market system. So when people – when free market people say that this is something that we have to allow to go unfettered and unscrutinized, because of free market economics, what they don’t realize is, is that they’re bringing in a system which is an anathema to free market economics. In fact, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi himself has called for replacement of capitalism by shariah finance. This is not capitalism. This is something else. It’s not communism. It’s not socialism. But it’s not capitalism, it’s not free enterprise. It is something else. It is a third way, if you will.

Another guy who said the exact same thing Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi did was our friend, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Who also, a couple of years ago, called for a replacement of capitalism by Islamic economics. And then, you may have been familiar, in 2009, an organization called Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is an international jihadist organization which has members in forty nations, has been banned in many nations, including Germany, their goal is reestablishing the caliphate. When they established their chapter in the United States, they held an event in Chicago – in Chicago [LAUGHTER] – and did I mention it was in Chicago? [LAUGHTER] Where else would it be? The name of their event was – I can’t remember the exact name, but it was essentially for Islam to replace capitalism. It wasn’t for Islam to replace democracy, it wasn’t for Islam to replace America, it wasn’t for Islam to replace Western Civilization. It was for Islam to replace capitalism. So shariah compliant finance is not about free enterprise. It’s not about free market. It’s not about capitalism. It is the opposite of that. And we’re allowing, literally, the camel’s nose under the tent by not seriously looking at this and determining where regulation is needed. Unfortunately, regulation is needed on this issue. That pretty much wraps up my prepared comments. Does anybody have any questions? Yes, ma’am?

WOMAN:

Have you guys any information on the financing [UNCLEAR] interested in, for that mosque at, you know, at 9-11 – I mean –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Well, that’s a good question. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] That’s a very useful question. The Ground Zero mosque, right. Now, we don’t know where that funding was going to come from. But it seems to be stymied right now. And the reason that it’s probably stymied is that it’s going to take a hundred million dollars to build it. And there’s two and a half million Muslims in the country and most of them, I don’t think, think that building a mosque at Ground Zero is such a peachy idea. So they’re not going to be able to raise a hundred million dollars from Muslims in America. You know, who, for the most part funds mosques in the United States? It’s the North American Islamic Trust. The North American Islamic Trust was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Depending on whose numbers you use, they own the title between twenty-seven percent and eighty percent of the mosques in the United States. And when you own a mosque, you get to decide the curriculum at the madrassa school associated with the mosque, you get to decide who the imam is, you get to call shots.

And the overwhelming majority of the funding for the North American Islamic Trust comes from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. You should also – might also be interested in knowing that, remember Dow Jones’ chief shariah adviser was Taqi Usmani? Well, the adviser to the Dow Jones Islamic fund is none other than North American Islamic Trust. An unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing operation in US history. Was the adviser to that fund. Again, we have an example of one of the most respected financial institutions in the United States not doing their due diligence when it comes to an organization that was involved in terrorism financing. Now, let’s take a look at the non-profit that Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy were putting – had before they put together the Ground Zero mosque. This might give as a clue as to where they were seeking to get their funds to build the mosque. They have an – she actually had an organization called ASMA, American Society for Muslim Advancement. [LAUGHTER] It was not lost on me. So the last year we have figures, they had an operating budget in 2009 of one million, three hundred and sixty thousand dollars. Okay? Not a big non-profit. But they had a one million, three hundred and sixty thousand dollar operating budget for the year. Six hundred and seven-six thousand dollars that year came from the emir of Qatar. All right? Three hundred thousand came from the Kingdom Foundation from the king of Saudi Arabia. So nine hundred and seventy-six thousand out of a 1.36 million operating budget we know came from two foreign powers. So they couldn’t – they basically could not run their little bitty non-profit without donations from foreign powers. Where do you think they’ve been getting a hundred million dollars to build a mosque at Ground Zero? I have a hunch that it wasn’t going to come from the United Way or the Red Cross. [LAUGHTER]

I know of no waivers that have been issued. You know, I don’t have an exact count as to how many financial institutions in this country have shariah compliant finance windows. There are dozens of them. If you look at most of the big financial institutions, the big banks, the big Wall Street firms, they almost all have shariah windows or shariah visions. You know, if you named them, I could probably tell you yes or no, but you know they almost all do. There’s four or five hundred total worldwide, perhaps, outside of Iran. Then you add Iran, it probably doubles the figure. So maybe a thousand. It’s 1.5 trillion dollars estimated to be under shariah finance right now.

There’s no question that that is the big problem. It’s a problem politically as well as, you know, in the world of finance. Just as you point out. And part of it is, it’s a result of disinformation that’s being circulated by Islamists here in the United States and throughout the world. When they give answers to questions about, you know, what is shariah? Well, it’s the path on which we walk. That’s probably one of the least evasive answers that I’ve heard. If you look at – shariah is the law of the land in only three nations in the world right now. Now there’s other nations that have shariah law embedded in their legal systems and have their legal systems subordinated to shariah law, but there’s only – shariah law is only the hundred percent law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan. Now look at those three countries. Human rights violations galore. Genocide in one of them. They all three support terrorism. I don’t care what anybody says. Saudi Arabia supports terrorism. They’re all into all these bad things and that’s not an accident, that’s not a coincidence. Wow. They’re all completely shariah and at the same time, they do all these really bad things. That is shariah. That’s not an accident. When you impose shariah completely on a nation, you end up with a situation where you, according to shariah, you have to wage jihad to promote Islam by violence if necessary. And yes, ignorance of shariah is a problem. The problem that I see on Wall Street is that it is blissful ignorance. It is like, I’m making money hand over fist, don’t tell me about all this stuff. I don’t want to know. Just tell me you’re not funding terrorism. And if they can be convinced that they’re not funding terrorism, they’re cool with it. The problem is, is that they’re not in a position to know for sure. Does that answer your question? Yes, sir?

MAN:

Chris, the article by Jeane Kirkpatrick from 1989 on how the PLO was legitimized through the UN would be most instructive, cause you see the whole process of covering up and of excusing terrorist organizations. It isn’t counted as terrorism if you’re doing it against oppressive colonial power, which would be the West, Israel, Britain, you name it. In some cases, India. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Justify the raid on Mumbai.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

That’s exactly a good point and I think it’s part of the problem that she – she mentioned, was that we, you know, Wall Street will try to make sure that there’s no terrorism funding going on. And Islamists could look back at somebody from Wall Street with a straight face and say, no, we’re not funding terrorism. Because they don’t consider whatever they’re funding to be terrorists. They don’t consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. So they can fund Hezbollah with a straight face. According to their philosophy, that’s not funding terrorism. Yes, sir.

FRED GRANDY:

Chris, clarify something about zakat. The portion that must go to zakat, then is segmented among eight different categories, is that correct? Or is it determined –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] It depends on which school of shariah you’re talking about. But in some schools, it has to be divided between all eight. In other schools, you can divide it how you want between the eight.

FRED GRANDY:

And is it that imam or that shariah compliant adviser who makes that determination?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Yes. And that’s something I failed to mention. I appreciate you pointing that out.

FRED GRANDY:

So just to finish, assuming – well, knowing that the large, the American financial institutions, the large banks, Bank of America, Goldman, Wells Fargo, and others, if they received our bailout money in 2008 and they had shariah compliant products, is it fair to say that some of that money coming from American taxpayers underwrote terrorist activities?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

It’s certainly a possibility. Usually they segregate their shariah instruments from the rest of the institution simply because on the shariah side, it’s required. For instance, one of their things that are considered haram under shariah is to invest in any way in any Western financial institution. You can’t invest in a Western financial institution, but it’s okay to be a shariah adviser to Western financial institutions as long as your little segment is not, you know, involved in any of the rest of their business. So there’s supposed to be a division there. So I don’t know if TARP money would end up in the shariah division, but it, you know, the big example of that that I think you’re getting at is AIG. Where we know for sure that AIG was bailed out with tremendous amounts of TARP money and at the same time they were standing up this taqifal [PH] division, which is a form of insurance under shariah and that is an example where we know that, in essence, US government funds were being used to subsidize a shariah compliant instrument.

FRED GRANDY:

But at this point, even in the aftermath of Dodd Frank and with Sarbanes and Oxley on the books, there is no reporting requirement that would divulge or would create any kind of transparency as to where these products are, how they’re being used, and where that money might be going?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Absolutely not. There’s no requirement with regard to zakat at all. I mean, in some cases, it’s not mentioned at all. Yes, ma’am.

CHRISTINE BRIM:

If I’m a local investor, is there any kind of blue sky or any kind of, you know, consumer protection legislation – let’s say somebody comes to me and says, hey, I got this wonderful ethical fund and, you know, I like to do ethical investing and I buy green funds and I buy this and that, and I go, oh, this is great. It’s a Middle Eastern ethical fund. You know, peace in the Middle East. Nobody says shariah. Or if they do say shariah, I say, what’s this shariah [MISPRONOUNCES WORD] thing and they say, well, it’s, you know, the path we walk. And I go, oh, lovely. Is there anything out there that will help me know how to invest, know what I’m actually putting my money into?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

It’s a real good question. Let me address that in a couple of ways. First of all, she makes mention of the fact that this is often referred to as ethical investing. There is an absolute move in, especially Great Britain, but it’s also moved over to this side of the Atlantic, to promote shariah compliant investments to non-Muslims. In Great Britain, it’s very common for non-Muslims to invest in shariah compliant investments and also to put their money in shariah banks. In fact, there’s one major shariah bank in Britain where forty percent of the depositors are thought to be non-Muslim. Now, Sheik Yusuf DeLorenzo is probably the most prominent shariah adviser to shariah compliant finance here in the United States. He actually recently moved to Dubai. But he actually came out and said that in countries that are non-Islamic, it is perfectly acceptable not to refer to shariah, but to refer to this as ethical investing. And not to refer to the shariah advisers and shariah advisers, but as ethical advisers. So this is – it gets back to the whole problem, it’s moving in the wrong direction when it comes to disclosure and transparency. It’s moving in the opposite direction. They’re concealing what this is and they’re trying to do it to capture non-Muslim investors, essentially, and get their money invested. Now there is really nothing right now that forces a shariah compliant fund to identify itself as such, except there’s going to be one state that has just passed a law – it passed the House and the Senate in Louisiana – and it’ll be signed by governor Jindal in a week or so, which requires this type of disclosure. And we’re hoping that more states will copy this. But really it needs to be done on the federal level, because the amount of regulation in the securities industry on the state level is obviously very limited. But it’s the best we can do right now. But it’s something that needs to happen on the federal level. There needs to be this disclosure of shariah, needs to be disclosure of zakat and where the zakat money goes. It absolutely has to be transparent. Yes, sir?

MAN:

Quick question, though. Having a law would be very good, but enforcement of the law is critical. I, in my organization, back in ’08, we put in a freedom of information act request of the US Treasury Department to tell us about the two day conference they held here in Washington with Harper Business School in December of ’08 on shariah compliant financing. Stonewalled. Wouldn’t give us anything.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Really?

MAN:

Really. And we have a freedom of information act built, you know, law on the books. And they just completely blew us off.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Is it any wonder that there’s no disclosure by the financial institutions themselves? If the regulators aren’t disclosing –

CHRISTINE BRIM:

[OVERLAP] What is your organization?

MAN:

Family Research Council.

CHRISTINE BRIM:

Family Research Council. Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Yes, ma’am.

WOMAN:

Is there a list – I mean, how do we find out, like you just said HSBC, well –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

I can promise you HSBC is up to their ears and elbows in this.

WOMAN:

Right. And I mean, I had no idea. So how do we find out.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

I’ve attempted in the past to publish lists. The problem is, that’s a dynamic thing. You know, if a company has a shariah compliant division and then, later on, stops it and they remain on the list, you know, they’ll threaten legal action and stuff like that. I can give you my card, you can contact me if you want to know, you know, about a particular institution, I’ll be happy to give you what information I have on that. It’s something that we ought to do. It’s something that we’ve looked at. But I can promise you right now if you’re dealing with one of the big boys, they pretty much have a shariah compliant division. Yes, ma’am?

WOMAN:

Can you talk a little bit about what happens if there’s any kind of dispute regarding the shariah compliant finances and if it goes to an imam for settlement rather than the SEC, is that a legal conflict or –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

That is not something that I’m really aware of, of that type of dispute. Has that happened here in the United States?

WOMAN:

I mean, this isn’t my area. But my understanding is that that’s part of the problem. That it warns of creating like the parallel system –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] Well, that is a problem with shariah, but I mean, that’s something new to me. I’m not aware –

WOMAN:

[OVERLAP] Yeah. I don’t want to put it in writing. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Yeah.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

I’d have to take a look at the prospectus to see how conflicts are supposed to be resolved [OVERLAPPING VOICES] but if they’re supposed to be resolved by the shariah advisers to the fund, you know, good luck. Yes, ma’am?

WOMAN:

To follow up with what this woman said about which institutions actually have these products, can you go to their individual website if you want to see –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] No, not really. You know, you can to some extent. But there are some that have shariah divisions overseas, but you go to their website in the United States and you try to do a search to see if they have an Islamic division or something like that, it won’t appear, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t do it. They just don’t like to talk about it.

WOMAN:

So when you, for example, I get documents from board meetings so that I can vote for board of directors and so forth, are there ways on those forms, on those bios to determine this kind of information?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

On the bios for –

WOMAN:

Well, let’s just say Metropolitan, cause I just got one –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Oh, you mean Metropolitan Life?

WOMAN:

Right. So –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Probably you’re not going to have a problem with Metropolitan Life, I’ll tell you why. Insurance – unless they have a taqifal insurance division, which I don’t believe they do, you know, insurance is something that is set up very differently under shariah finance than it is under conventional finance. So there are some shariah insurance companies. The only one in the West that I know of, really, was AIG. And, you know, they were into it in a big, big way, obviously.

WOMAN:

But Metropolitan has a whole investment division –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

That’s true. You know, and I’m not aware of that particular one, but I’ll research it for you. I’ll be happy to.

WOMAN:

How about credit unions?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Most local credit unions, I don’t think you’d have a problem. You know, now maybe some of the big national ones, but I don’t think, yes, ma’am?

CHRISTINE BRIM:

There’s the blog shariahfinancewatch.org. If people have a question, they could also just search there. It might turn up.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

We have a search feature on the blog. You can go in and – you’re not going to find anything under Metropolitan Life there, though, I know. But I’ll be happy to look into that for you.

WOMAN:

Well, that was just an example. I mean, is there any way to tell from these documents that come to vote on a board of directors or –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] I’d be very surprised, unless they mention it overtly in the documents, you know, I’d be very surprised if it was disclosed. You know, very surprised. Cause most of these – when it comes to, you know, there’s a difference between a shariah compliant financial institution and a financial institution who has a shariah compliant division or maybe sells a shariah compliant product, all right? And in the United States, for instance, Chase – JP Morgan/Chase – has a shariah compliant division, okay? Now their overall financial institution is not shariah compliant. But they have a division that’s shariah compliant. That’s different from like Bank Melli in Iran, which is completely shariah compliant from soup to nuts. Do you understand the difference there?

WOMAN:

So these companies’ purpose is to put people on their boards or on their whatever, have someone to talk with them and decide about the shariah compliance?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Well, the shariah advisory board is more than just talk to them. I mean, those – the shariah advisers make the decisions. They make the decisions on whether you can invest in something or not and they make decisions on where the zakat money goes. Incidentally, there’s another aspect of that that I failed to mention. It’s called purification. It’s related to zakat, but it’s perhaps an even greater moral hazard. Under purification, let’s say that we’re running a shariah compliant financial instrument – a mutual fund – and we invest in your farm. And at the time that we invest in your farm, all you’re doing is growing corn. But we come back a year later and you’re making alcohol out of that corn. And that’s haram. We can’t profit by that. So what we’d have to do is we’d have to purify those funds. And shariah advisers would then take all the proceeds that we got from that investment, okay, and they would purify it by sending it to Islamic charities. And so, you know, you can see where, if you wanted to – if you wanted to send money to an Islamic charity that was supporting jihad, for instance, you know, first thing you’d do is you’d go find, pick a farm, invest in it and then come back a year later and say, oh, look what I’ve done. [LAUGHTER] How silly of me. And purify all that money. You know, it’s a great way to funnel money. And, look, it’s not a fantasy. Bank Al Taqwa did it. We know that it’s done. It’s breaking news in Bangladesh. A shariah adviser to one of the banks there was just arrested for taking part in an attack on a police station. I’ve got – that will go up on the blog later. I mean, this, he’s not a major shariah adviser. I’m not going to say he’s one of the top twenty-four, but, I mean, he’s a shariah adviser to a bank there. Yes, ma’am?

WOMAN:

Are you saying that the average middle class American investor could possibly be investing in shariah law with their funds and not even know it?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Could happen. Absolutely could happen. It’s very common in Great Britain. Everything that happens over there tends to come over here a few years later. So it’s theoretically possible here now. If you look in Great Britain, it is happening – it’s almost widespread there. But what could happen right now is that you could be approached by somebody with the Amana group of funds and they could come to you and say, this is a socially responsible group of mutual funds We don’t invest in alcohol, pornography, we don’t invest in – pork, yeah. You probably don’t care so much about that, but we won’t mention that. We’ll talk a lot about pornography and we’ll talk a lot about alcohol. We’ll talk about, oh, we don’t invest in armaments industries. At least in armaments industries in the West. So those are the things that they’ll go to people and they’ll say, you know, this is ethical investing, socially responsible investing. And they won’t mention that, you know, it’s socially responsible according to who? According to Taqi Usmani and Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, they think it’s ethical as hell.

WOMAN:

So that would come through your investor and then your manager who’s managing your funds would relay that information to you, so it would be their responsibility to filter a lot of that out, correct? I mean –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] Well, yeah, I think there’s a chain of responsibility. There’s a chain of responsibility there. The responsibility, you know, is with the fund itself to properly disclose. If they’re not doing it, then it’s the responsibility of, you know, your registered representative or your financial planner to do his due diligence. To make sure that you’re not, you know, doing something against your own principles. I mean, if you’re someone that has expressed an interest in socially responsible investing, he obviously – he or she obviously knows that you care about what you invest in, so he or she should research it for you. But if the fund itself is not fully disclosing what this is all about, how is he or she going to know? I can tell you that most registered representatives and financial planners, they’re salespeople. They depend on the literature that they’re given from the fund. They don’t have access to, I mean, it’s very difficult for me to believe that Wall Street could ever police themselves on this. They don’t have the incentive and they don’t have the skills to do it. They don’t know what to look for. Yes, sir?

MAN:

What has to happen here, from your perspective, you described the problems as huge, is I think you’re suggesting you have to have full disclosure, first of all, and that’s going to take some time, okay. But then the next step after that or simultaneously with that is for, what, the Treasury to look at these things and do an investment –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] Well, I think that you’ll – under existing laws, this is something that should be scrutinized by the SEC. I think absolutely that that is the case –

MAN:

So that has to happen in order to solve this –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] Or more legislation needs to be passed to get them to do it or maybe hearings need to be held. Maybe they need to call in the SEC in front of, you know, a committee and say, what are you doing about this?

MAN:

Conduct hearings, okay.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Something. I find it astounding that the Family Research Council would do a freedom of information act request and get no answer on that. That’s – it’s astounding. Astounding.

MAN:

Yeah. And because of the tyranny of the urgent, other things pressing in, we didn’t keep at it, keep at it, keep at it. But –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Well, I’d like to talk to you after this and maybe we’ll –

WOMAN:

[OVERLAP] – get a lawyer, the documents magically appear. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING VOICES] I’m just telling you.

MAN:

They called it – they didn’t cover up what it was. They said shariah compliant financing. Now, this was December of ’08.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

I remember when they held that seminar.

MAN:

– two days. Department of Treasury. Harper –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

And they had Sheik DeLorenzo was, you know, one of the big guys there. Now, let me tell you a little bit about Sheik DeLorenzo. Sheik DeLorenzo was – he graduated from a prep school in Massachusetts at eighteen and went to Cornell for a year and dropped out of Cornell, like everybody moved to Pakistan. [LAUGHTER] And went to a madrassa which was, lo and behold, the same madrassa that was giving birth to all kinds of jihadi organizations in Pakistan. He excelled there and he became an adviser to Zia ul-Haq, who was the general who took over Pakistan in the 1970s and essentially imposed shariah law on their legal system, the Islamization of Pakistan was extensively written about in those days. And this guy DeLorenzo from Massachusetts, born a Catholic, converted to Islam, became a shariah scholar, was an adviser to him for many years, came back to the United States. He was the dean of the curriculum at the Islamic Saudi Academy right across the way here. Which we know that they were – they had textbooks that were telling children that apostates from Islam need to be killed and all this other kind of stuff and Christians and Jews are descendants from apes and pigs and all that stuff. And this guy was in charge of that curriculum at the Islamic Saudi Academy. And this is the guy who was the keynote speaker, so to speak, the big shariah adviser at the Department of Treasury’s event promoting Islamic finance in December of 2008. I could go on and on about the guy. I mean, he’s got all kinds of connections that are like – make you scratch your head. And they all do. I mean, this is like –

WOMAN:

Who’s the Harvard connection?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Yeah, the Harvard. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Yeah, I went to [OVERLAPPING VOICES] you’re catching me flatfooted here. The name of the – there’s two professors at Harvard, his name starts with a V – Vogel. One of them is Professor Vogel at Harvard –

FRED GRANDY:

Frank Vogel.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Frank Vogel, yeah. And there’s another guy there who’s into it. And I actually attended a seminar at Harvard Law School on shariah finance a few years ago. And let me tell you, I felt like I was on another planet. I mean, the way they were talking in there – first of all, they – I didn’t bring it with me, but they handed out a magazine from the banker in England, okay? And it was free to anyone that attended this seminar. And this was a big seminar. It was a big auditorium at Harvard Law School and everybody got one of these magazines. And it, you know, cover story, Iran dominates the world of shariah finance. I mean, they’re promoting and celebrating this and the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, who has a nuclear weapons program, and essentially has been waging a proxy war against the United States for a generation is the subject of the cover story of the magazine tat they hand out at the seminar at Harvard Law School. Now, I looked at it and I was like, gee whiz, I mean, does anybody see anything wrong with this?

MAN:

Harvard Law School or Harvard Business School?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Harvard Law School. The shariah finance division is at Harvard Law School.

MAN:

Was Kagan dean at the time?

CHRISTINE BRIM:

Yes she was. Yes she was. [LAUGHTER] There are three posts over at Big Peace that discuss Dean Kagan’s facilitation of shariah.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Yes, she was. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] I didn’t see her. I’d have noticed her. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] [LAUGHTER] But I took a lot of notes. That was a few years ago, but, you know, that was the first clue that I had that many people on the left in this country thought the Muslim Brotherhood was just peachy. I mean, they were talking about the Muslim Brotherhood like Palmolive or something.

WOMAN:

Well, I guess my question, how are they aiming it on the other side? What are they like a peace loving organization like a bunch of hippies from the 60s? I mean, what are they saying on the other side –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

When you say the other side –

WOMAN:

The left or –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] Well, the left hasn’t really chimed in on shariah finance. Now, on shariah, you know, they basically bought into the line that shariah is just something for pious Muslims and doesn’t have any implications beyond, you know, washing your feet before you pray. I mean, that’s their view of shariah. But the fact of the matter is, shariah is the enemy threat doctrine. And the way that they envision it and the fantasy that they have about it, shariah is not practiced that way anywhere in the world. You go anywhere in the world where shariah is practiced and you can pretty much find, you know, oppression of women and minorities, you can find sponsorship of jihad, you can find, in many cases, genocide. Which is usually an outgrowth of jihad. I mean, just – it just happens. It’s a totalitarian system. And totalitarian systems tend to be aggressive and violent. Shariah is, inherently. Yes, sir.

FRED GRANDY:

Could you just quickly tie in sukuk and sovereign wealth funds into how they fit under the arc of shariah finance?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

That’s another good question. All right. Sukuk is something called Islamic bond. The shariah finance community wanted to tap into the debt markets, but they can’t because they can’t either give or receive interest. So they’ve invented something that they call, it’s called Islamic bond, which is – the proper name for it is a sukuk. It’s not a bond at all. It’s a partnership system in which, frankly, it’s convoluted. They created this financial instrument which, you know, pays out money, but they don’t call it interest. They call it something else. And it’s – you’re starting to see many Islamic nations, especially from the Persian Gulf region, issue sukuk. And you’re also starting to see them to pressure Western nations and non-Islamic nations to issue sukuk as their sovereign wealth. And this plays both ways. Number one, when they offer money to a country like Korea or the Philippines, and this has happened in both cases, what they’ve basically said is, you know, we’ve got all this money and we would be happy to invest in your national debt interests, but it has to be shariah compliant. So it is a form of Islamic imperialism. You can go ahead and issue, you know, national bonds, but you’re not going to get our wealth unless it’s shariah compliant. So you must comply with our law in order to do it. And you’re starting to see, I mean, Russia has issued a sukuk. Korea is probably reluctantly going to issue a sukuk. Philippines have issued a sukuk. You’re starting to see it more and more around the world. You’re going to see it in Western Europe very soon. You’re going to see these nations issue sukuk. It’s all about getting us to play by their rules. Remember, the purpose of shariah compliant finance is to promote shariah. Several years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned that the incorporation of shariah law into some of British common law was inevitable. And then the prime minister of Britain, right after he said that, said, yeah, we’ve already accommodated shariah finance, after all, and it hasn’t done us any harm. This is a Trojan horse. It’s a means of getting us to play by their rules. And getting us comfortable with shariah so that next thing they can do is move in with family law. And then, little by little over time, get us to where we’re desensitized to where it’s where we don’t even care anymore. Yes, sir.

MAN:

Is there any debt held by the Americans under sukuk?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] Yeah, General Electric Capital Corporation has issued a sukuk. There are several sukuks that have been issued from the United States. Not the US Treasury yet. Thankfully. I say yet. But you can be sure that we will be under pressure to issue a US Treasury sukuk because our counterparts in the Persian Gulf region will pressure us to make sure that our debt is shariah compliant. And, you know, the whole issue of sovereign wealth funds. The emir of Qatar is probably the biggest one when it comes to this. He’s got a huge amount of wealth that he’s, you know, garnered from oil and natural gas in Qatar. And, you know, he goes around and invests that sovereign wealth. But in the process of investing, they put conditions on him. And usually those conditions have to do with shariah. So it is a foil with which they are able to impose shariah on the rest of the world. In a way – if you want our money, if you want us to invest with you, just make sure that you’re shariah compliant and then – [TAPE BREAKS]

I have not seen any reports on that, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I would imagine, given the close ties between Venezuela and Iran, that it’s probably happening there at some point. And Brazil has ties to the Middle East. I wouldn’t doubt that it would happen there. Just off the top of my head. I don’t know if any of these countries have issued a sukuk or anything like that. I don’t [OVERLAPPING VOICES] but the tri-border region of South America, where there’s a heavy Middle Eastern expatriate population, my guess is, is that there probably is a presence for shariah financial institutions down there. Yes, sir?

MAN:

A shariah compliant mortgage for a Muslim in this country, if he wants to get a shariah compliant mortgage, how does that differ specifically from a conventional mortgage?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

That’s a real good question. It’s called murabaha, okay. And, you know, how does it differ? Well, I could tell you the convoluted way, but basically what it is – [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Basically what it is, it’s this. You know, they will advertise that as interest free mortgages. And that is incredibly unethical, because it’s not interest free. It’s just you don’t pay interest. You pay fees and charges. Which, coincidentally enough, fluctuate almost in lockstep with prevailing interest rates. Except the other difference between the shariah compliant mortgage and a conventional mortgage is that almost across the board, the charges and fees associated with a shariah compliant mortgage are greater than the interest charge would be on a conventional mortgage. And then they advertise them as interest free. And they do that, make no mistake about it, they advertise them as interest free to try to get non-Muslims to buy – to sign up for them.

MAN:

Is it difficult, if I want to go buy that house over there and it had a mortgage on it and it was a Muslim-owned shariah compliant finance – financial institution, would it be easy for me to buy that house or would it be easier for a Muslim to buy that house? I mean, are there restrictions? Do they try and keep that –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

I think you can probably do it. If you approach them and say, I want to have one of these –

MAN:

They don’t care?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

They – one of their goals is to have non-Muslims abide by shariah law. And the purpose of this is to promote shariah. So if you want to have a mortgage according to shariah law, they’re happy for you to do that.

MAN:

Are they more sympathetic or more willing to deal with people who are going to buy their mortgage? I think you would say – I see what you’re saying, but –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] I don’t know. I don’t know. I have never been in that position. I don’t know. I don’t know if you’d be treated nice or not. I would imagine you would be, though. If you just went in there and say, I heard this is a much better way of –

MAN:

[OVERLAP] – discriminate against those people who are non-Muslims and –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

I think probably, unfortunately, just the opposite. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Yes, ma’am?

WOMAN:

Getting back to the General Electric sukuk bond, can you say that a portion of that money, then, through General Electric, [UNCLEAR] General Electric, goes to further the cause of –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

[OVERLAP] No question. This is one of the cases where it – something is disclosed in the prospectus. I have a copy of the prospectus and they do actually acknowledge in the prospectus that a portion of the proceeds do – does get donated to Islamic charities. They leave it at that. That’s the extent of the disclosure. And to me, that amount of disclosure right there is enough to draw my interest, okay? Cause it’s like, all right, which Islamic charities? And what do you know about these Islamic charities? Because if you ask the folks at GE, my guess is they don’t know anything. Yes, sir?

MAN:

Do you have a copy of that prospectus –

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

I do have a copy of that prospectus, I’d be happy to share it with you. If you get my card, I will be happy to send it to you. Yes, sir?

MAN:

Would it be fair to actually say that these are different forms of fundraising for jihad?

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Well, yeah. Incidentally, sir, that sukuk is not offered for sale in the United States, all right? It’s a General Electric Capital Corporation offering, but it’s not something that they’re offering here in the United States. It’s not regulated by the SEC. Okay? So I guess they realize that they may have a problem offering that here in the United States and they chose not to. [BACKGROUND VOICE] I’m sorry, say that –

WOMAN:

It’s called material support.

CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:

Material support for terrorism. No question. Any other questions? Thank you very much for coming. I appreciate it. [APPLAUSE]

[END OF FILE]

Frank Gaffney’s Warning for America

April 28, 2012Center for Security Policy

By Jack Kemp, The American Thinker.

On the morning of April 24, Frank Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, held a live public gathering and online briefing in Washington to discuss his latest project. Gaffney’s organization has produced a ten-part video course, which Gaffney narrates, on the Muslim Brotherhood in America. This free course, lasting around ten hours, can be accessed at www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com. It explains why we are not winning the war against jihad in America today and names the names of those responsible for the current situation.

Preceding Mr. Gaffney’s main talk was Harry E. Soyster, a retired U.S. Army general and member of Gaffney’s research team. He pointed out that the CIA’s published Book of World Facts (and trends) didn’t even mention religion as a significant factor in politics and thus is quite myopic in its worldview. It was also mentioned during this gathering that a senior State Department official had said that “the war on terror is over” since we have “killed most of Al Qaida.” The general also mentioned was that in Italy today, crucifixes are being removed from all public places so as not to offend Muslims. Gen. Soyster recalled, in years past, having to register a car in Italy and going to a police station where there was a crucifix on the wall, as it was considered a normal part of Italian culture. Speaking about both Italy and the U.S., he concluded that with the attacks on our culture, the government refuses to look at the true situation and is thus limiting (hindering) itself and stopping any chance of victory (in this profound culture war).

Frank Gaffney then took the podium to give a basic refutation of a prevalent myth today, stating that although we can eliminate a number of semi-literate jihadists overseas, the major thrust of the jihadists now in America is to engage in a civilizational jihad. This stealth jihad currently overshadows the violent acts of such people as Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood or Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to set off a bomb in Times Square in New York. Gaffney is talking about a civilizational jihad consisting of lawfare, multiple court cases used to financially drain defendants and inhibit free speech, and “insidious informational dominance” that results in Americans imposing a doctrine on ourselves of not offending organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood as they attempt to impose demands of silence at the expense of our Constitution. Also widespread is a civilizational jihad technique of takiya — deception — claiming that attempts to influence and change our laws and culture aren’t what they clearly are. Mr. Gaffney stated plainly that the Muslim Brotherhood’s objectives are indistinguishable from those of al-Qaeda. In fact, he called civilizational jihad “pre-violent” and not merely “non-violent.”

The briefing crowd was then shown a fifteen-minute video executive summary of the ten-part online video course on The Muslim Brotherhood in America. The summary touched upon a number of subjects and was narrated by the Center for Security Policy’s president.

The first part was a criticism of the constant apologies one sees offered to jihadists, particularly by our higher-level military officers. Also, there was mention that U.S. soldiers themselves are “taught to talk in submissive terms” about Islam. Nidal Malik Hasan’s attack at Ft. Hood was classified by the government as “workplace violence,” to give an example.

Gaffney then identified Grover Norquist, the tax protester and associate of Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi, as one of the enablers of the Muslim Brotherhood in the latter’s efforts to influence American government leadership at the time of time of the George W. Bush administration. This type of influence has continued under the Obama administration with the placing of Muslims who advocate civilizational jihad in high places. These people advocate policies that do not speak the truth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s self-professed programs of wanting to change America to a sharia-compliant state along with continued attempts to normalize the suppression of free speech as it relates to jihadists.

In the final part of the fifteen-minute overview film, Gaffney discusses the last of the ten-part video course, which goes into some detail about what can be done by individuals and groups to stop this assault on our values by civilizational jihad. There are listings of (re)sources at other websites given in that lesson. At the conclusion of the video preview, Mr. Gaffney mentioned that today, the New York City Police Department is being attacked politically, that the Muslim Public Affairs Council is now “educating” the government and calling on Attorney General Holder to investigate the NY Police Department. One would assume that the offense of the NYPD is daring to investigate, find, report, and act on jihadist activities.

“We have to start to understand. It is our purpose to start this debate,” Mr. Gaffney said in concluding his prepared remarks. And this was followed by questions by those in attendance and by some online participants.

Someone asked about Huma Abedin, the member of a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group, wife of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, and current political confidante of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Frank Gaffney replied that because he has no subpoena power, he is not sure what she is doing, but he knows from public records that Hillary Clinton just gave $1.5 billion to the current post-Mubarak government of Egypt.

The next question, though provocative, was treated seriously by Mr. Gaffney. It was asked whether the film and the briefing was a slander against Muslims. Gaffney replied that such wasn’t the case and that he knows that there are millions of Muslims who don’t want to live under sharia — Muslims who came to the U.S. to get away from sharia-based governments. He further stated that during the Cold War, a person’s loose association with communists was considered enough to make him suspect but that current definitions of what constitutes a jihadist are not as strict. Gaffney said that he hoped his ten-part video course will be seen as a legitimate inquiry into the nature of the situation today.

Something not mentioned in Mr. Gaffney’s reply was that his Center for Security Policy was a participant and sponsor of the early March public show of support by moderate Muslims in favor of the New York City Police Department and their Commissioner Ray Kelly, an event led by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. In fact, Mr. Gaffney’s executive vice president, former Congressman Fred Grandy, was a participant at that event, as I reported in American Thinker.

“To the extent that we ignore the connections of these groups we are insuring our government’s defeat in civilizational jihad,” Gaffney added. He further stated that the Justice Department has ordered the FBI to purge documents that “offended” Muslim groups because of complaints from the Muslim Brotherhood, thus making the training that FBI agents receive less detailed as to various past facts uncovered and conclusions made, despite whose feelings might be allegedly hurt.

A question was posed by someone listening on the internet in Kansas, asking whether the State Department should classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a hostile foreign power — essentially a terrorist organization. Gaffney replied that that is his own recommendation.

Another question led to a detailed discussion of a stealth jihad tactic known as having an “Interfaith Dialog.” This often extends the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood into churches and leads to changes in how churches act and perceive the Brotherhood. There was also a discussion of schools that require young Americans to pretend they are Muslims for a period of time — an indulgence given to no other religion in our secular schools.

The question of how sharia is being addressed in American law schools got a response from Mr. Gaffney in which he stated that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has been a major promoter of sharia financial education in law schools. This led to another discussion of a war on women in America caused by courts in the U.S. supporting a sharia-compliant decision in 23 of 27 cases brought so far. New Jersey had a famous — one could say infamous — case where a woman was being raped and beaten by her husband, and the family court upheld the practice because it was part of sharia cultural practices, refusing to grant a restraining order against her Moroccan husband.

One of the final questions asked of Mr. Gaffney was all but a stealth jihad act in itself. Someone inquired whether sharia law was similar to Orthodox Jewish Halacha Law, since both have many strictures. Rather than dismissing this out of hand, Gaffney addressed the question with an answer formulated by David Yerushalmi, an Orthodox Jewish attorney he works with. Halacha, Gaffney stated, does not advocate the overthrow of the government and requires submission to the secular law of the land. What went unsaid was that this is very different from sharia law, which seeks to establish a caliphate and make sharia the law of the land, negating the U.S. Constitution. I believe that Mr. Gaffney answered this question more for the audience listening in on the internet and for the other people in the room than for the questioner, who appeared to attempt to advance a false equivalence between the two religions’ laws.

Another of the final topics mentioned was the original prosecutorial intention of the successful 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation case convictions — namely, for that case to be a first step in further investigations and trials. But Attorney General Holder has been unwilling to investigate or bring to trial anyone else in a Phase Two follow-up.

Among these final remarks, Mr. Gaffney made a plea for his cause in relation to the upcoming U.S. elections. He asked if we, as Americans, want more submissions to sharia — or do we want something different? What he didn’t say is what I will now add.

It would be too easy to assume that one political party is automatically better in regard to fighting a civilizational jihad than the other party. In fact, the extent of the attack on our society’s institutions in the name of tolerance (that is, of our tolerance alone) has not been fully understood by either political party’s leadership. It is up to all of us to be, as Thomas Jefferson said, eternally vigilant as to the price of our liberty. And this issue will not go away if your favorite political party wins in November. There will still be much to do to keep our Republic.

Originally posted at the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/frank_gaffneys_warning_and_video_lessons_for_america.html

Raymond Ibrahim: Shariah, Dhimmitude & the Copts

December 8, 2011Center for Security Policy

Raymond Ibrahim testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the House of Representatives. Reps. Frank Wolf and James McDermott presented "Under Threat: The Worsening Plight of Egypt’s Coptic Christians."

Raymond Ibrahim is a Middle East and Islam specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. A widely published author, best known for The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday, 2007), he guest lectures at universities, including the National Defense Intelligence College, briefs governmental agencies, such as U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and has testified before Congress regarding the conceptual failures that dominate American discourse concerning Islam.

Other witnesses included Kathy Fitzpatrick (Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State); Nina Shea (Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson Institute); Dina Guirguis (Member, Egyptian American Rule of Law Association); Adel Guindy (President, Coptic Solidarity International); and Cynthia Farahat (Egyptian political activist).

The following is Mr. Ibrahim’s testimony for the record and, below, is a transcript of his comments at the hearing.

Raymond Ibrahim: Testimony before the Tom Lantos Commission, December 7 2011. Click here for a PDF of his testimony for the record.

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND IBRAHIM

TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Since the year 641, when Muslims invaded Egypt, the Copts-Egypt’s Christian, indigenous inhabitants-have been subject to persecution, discrimination, and over all subjugation on their homeland (etymologically, the word "Copt" simply means "Egyptian").[1] The result is an Egyptian culture and mentality that sees Copts as second-class citizens, or, in Islamic legal terminology, Dhimmis-"infidels" who are tolerated as long as they embrace their inferior status.

Whole books and treatises have been written on the treatment of Dhimmis (for instance, Ibn Qayyim’s authoritative 8^th century Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma, or "Rulings for Dhimmis"). The idea of subjugating non-Muslims, aptly coined "Dhimmitude," comes from Quran 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the religion of Truth [Islam], from the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the Jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued."

The so-called Pact of Omar,[2] a foundational text for the treatment of Dhimmis, offers an idea of how this Quranic decree manifested itself in reality. In order to maintain their Christian faith, among other things, conquered Christians had to agree to the following:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims … We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims… We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead… We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims. We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

During the colonial era and into the mid 20th Century, as Egypt experimented with westernization and nationalism, Christian persecution was markedly subdued. Today, however, as Egypt all but spearheads Islam’s resurgence-giving the world key figures and groups such as Sayyid Qutb, Hassan Bana, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda’s Aymen Zawahiri in the process-that is, as Egypt reclaims its Islamic identity, the Copts find themselves again under persecution.

Today, popular Muslim preachers on Egyptian TV openly condemn Christians, publicly calling for the return of Dhimmi status; Copts and their churches are almost always attacked on Friday, immediately after the weekly mosque sermons and to cries of "Allahu Akbar!" demonstrating the Islamic pedigree of the attack.

None of this is surprising when one considers that even Egypt’s Grand Mufti himself, often touted in the West as a "moderate," recently classified all Christians[3] as "infidels," or kuffar,[4] a term that immediately positions Copts as enemies to be suppressed.

Aside from the fact that practically every week an account of Muslims attacking Copts emerges-whether the destroying of churches, the killing of Copts for wearing crosses, the abducting, raping, and force-converting of Coptic girls-perhaps nothing exemplifies their plight as the following governmental, that is, institutionalized, stipulations:

According to the Second Article of the Egyptian Constitution,[5] Sharia law-which is based on the anti-Christian words of the Quran and prophet Muhammad as contained in the Hadith-is "the principal source of legislation"; and since Dhimmitude is part and parcel of Sharia law, expectations for Copts to behave as subdued, second-class citizens, or Dhimmis, becomes implicit. For instance, and in accordance with the aforementioned stipulations of the Pact of Omar, it is next to impossible for churches to be built.

The Egyptian government likewise makes it next to impossible for Muslims to convert to Christianity (apostasy is a crime under Sharia). Among the more popular cases are Mohammad Hegazy[6]: he tried formally to change his religion from Muslim to Christian on his I.D. card-in Egypt, people are identified by their religion, again, as stipulated in the Pact of Omar -only to be denied[7] by the Egyptian court. Conversely, it takes mere days for Christian converts to Islam to change their religious I.D.

Most recently, several aspects of the Maspero massacre revealed the Egyptian government’s inherent hostility to its Christian citizenry:

Soldiers screamed "Allahu Akbar!"[8] and cursed "Infidels" as they approached and attacked Coptic protesters; a video of an Egyptian soldier boasting that he shot a Christian in the chest is greeted by the crowd around him with "Allahu Akbar!"[9]; and after the incident, Dr. Hind Hanafi, president of the University of Cairo, recommended separating wounded Christians from wounded Muslims admitted into the hospital, thereby institutionalizing religious discrimination, even in hospitals.[10]

Aside from these formalized aspects, Egyptian officials are notorious for turning a blind eye to Muslim mob attacks on Christians and their churches. In fact, it is this governmental complacency-or complicity-regarding attacks on Christians that that caused Copts to demonstrate at Maspero in the first place, before the government, including through the use of snipers, death squads, and tanks that intentionally ran over protesters, initiated the bloodbath that followed.

Anyone familiar with Muslim doctrine and history, especially as it applies to Egypt and the Copts, will find none of the above surprising; rather, the treatment of Copts in the Medieval era and their treatment today demonstrate great continuity-from the destruction of churches to the subjugation of Christians.

However, because there was a lull in this animosity, from the colonial era when Islam was on the wane, to just a few decades ago, most Westerners, deeming events closer to their time and space more representative of reality, ignore the continuum of history and doctrine dealing with persecution, and thus fail to comprehend what is otherwise so obvious and open for the world to see. This is exacerbated by the fact that the articulators of knowledge-the media, academia, and apologists of all stripes-in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness, have made uncomfortable truths all but unknowable.

In short, the evidence of Muslim persecution of Christians in general, persecution of Egyptian Copts in particular, is overwhelming-doctrinally, historically, and current events. What is lacking is a Western paradigm that can accept-and act upon-this evidence.

APPENDIX A

The following two reports discuss the Maspero Massacre and the events leading up to it, namely, the destruction of yet another Coptic Church, and provide proper context to the plight of Egypt’s Copts.

Report 1: Egypt-Destroying Churches, One at a Time

What clearer sign that Egypt is turning rabidly Islamist than the fact that hardly a few weeks go by without a church being destroyed, or without protesting Christians being attacked and slaughtered by the military?

The latest chaos in Egypt-where the military opened fire on unarmed Christians and repeatedly ran armored vehicles over them, killing dozens[11]-originates in Edfu, a onetime tourist destination renowned for its pharaonic antiquities, but now known as the latest region to see enraged Muslims destroy a church.

This church attack is itself eye-opening as to the situation in Egypt. To sum, St. George Coptic Church, built nearly a century ago, was so dilapidated that the local council and governor of Aswan approved renovating it, and signed off on the design.

It was not long before local Muslims began complaining, making various demands, including that the church be devoid of crosses and bells-even though the permit approved them-citing that "the Cross irritates Muslims and their children."[12]

Coptic leaders had no choice but to acquiesce, "pointing to the fact that the church was rebuilt legally, and any concessions on the part of the church was done for the love for the country, which is passing through a difficult phase."

Acquiescence breeds more demands: Muslim leaders next insisted that the very dome of the church be removed-so that the building might not even resemble a church-and that it be referred to as a "hospitality home." Arguing that removal of the dome would likely collapse the church, the bishop refused.

The foreboding cries of "Allahu Akbar!" began:[13] Muslims threatened to raze the church and build a mosque in its place; Copts were "forbidden to leave their homes or buy food until they remove the dome of St. George’s Church"; many starved for weeks.

Then, after Friday prayers on September 30, some three thousand Muslims rampaged the church, torched it, and demolished the dome; flames from the wreckage burned nearby Coptic homes, which were further ransacked by rioting Muslims.

This account of anti-church sentiment in Egypt offers several conclusions:

First, the obvious: animosity for churches, demands that they be left to crumble, demands to remove crosses and stifle bells, are an integral part of Islamic history and dogma.[14] That church attacks in Egypt always occur on Friday, Islam’s holy day, and are always accompanied by religious cries of "Allahu Akbar!" should be evidence enough of the Islamist context of these attacks.

Because there was a lull in this animosity from the colonial era to just a few decades ago, most Westerners, deeming events closer to their time and space more representative of reality, incorrectly assume that church toleration is the rule, not the exception in Islamic history, which has more frequently been draconian to churches, and is back: "the Muslim Brotherhood announced immediately after the revolution that it is impossible to build any new church in Egypt, and churches which are demolished should never be rebuilt, as well as no crosses over churches or bells to be rung."[15]

This is also why Muslim authorities are complacent, if not complicit. According to witnesses, security forces, which were present during the Edfu attack, "stood there watching." Worse, Edfu’s Intelligence Unit chief was seen directing the mob destroying the church.[16]

As for the governor of Aswan, he appeared on State TV and "denied any church being torched," calling it a "guest home" (a common tactic to excuse the destruction of churches[17]). He even justified the incident by arguing that the church contractor made the building three meters higher than he permitted: "Copts made a mistake and had to be punished, and Muslims did nothing but set things right, end of story."[18]

Equally telling is that perpetrators of church attacks are seldom if ever punished. Even if sometimes the most rabid church-destroyers get "detained," it is usually for show, as they are released in days, hailed back home as heroes (this, too, goes back to Muslim dogma).

This year alone has seen the New Year church attack, which left 23 dead;[19] the destruction of the ancient church of Sool,[20] where Muslims "played soccer" with its sacred relics; the Imbaba attacks,[21] where several churches were set aflame; and now Edfu, wherein, as usual "none of the attackers were arrested."[22]

Indeed, three days after Edfu, Muslims attacked yet another church.[23]

Aware that they are untouchable, at least when it comes to making infidel Christians miserable, anti-Christian Muslims have a simple strategy: destroy churches, even if one at a time, safe in the knowledge that, not only will they not be prosecuted, but Egypt’s military and security apparatus will punish the infidel victims should they dare to protest.

Report 2: Egypt’s Massacre of Christians: What the Media Does Not Want You To Know

Western media coverage of the recent massacre of Coptic Christians in Cairo, Egypt-in which the military killed dozens of Christians and injured some 300-was, as discussed earlier, deplorable.[24] It merely repeated the false propaganda of the complicit state-run media, without checking facts. Since then, further proofs of the lies and brutality surrounding the massacre have emerged; they are compiled in the following report which consists of facts and videos from Arabic sources-many of which have not appeared in the Western media.

This report documents: 1) the activities of the Supreme Military Council of Egypt and de facto ruler; 2) the lies and duplicitous tactics of both the Military Council and its media mouthpiece, Egyptian TV; and 3) the anti-Christian sentiment pervading all aspects of this incident.

The Egyptian Military

Along with a new report by Magdi Khalil asserting that the day before the planned march, a "death squad" of snipers hid atop buildings and shot at protesters, armored vehicles intentionally chased after and ran over protesters, killing and mutilating many.[25] Videos captured by witnesses included:

o A high-speed armored vehicle willfully plowing over unsuspecting Christian demonstrators.[26]

o Another armored vehicle chasing protesters, and a soldier opening fire into the fleeing crowds.[27]

o High-speed armored cars running amok in the middle of the crowds, including chasing protesters on the curb, as well as soldiers beating protesters.[28]

o More eyewitness testimony attesting to the brutality of the massacre, and they are many, and the victims include Muslims. Videos: 1[29] 2[30] 3[31] 4[32] 5[33]

The Tactics of the Military Council (or "War is Deceit")[34]

After the incident and notwithstanding crushing evidence, Egypt’s Military Council held a news conference wherein senior official, Mahmoud Hegazy,[35] spun lie after lie: he stated that the military would "never, never" run over civilians; that the very idea was "impossible, impossible!" and "Shame on those who accuse the Egyptian military of such things!… Never has our military run over a single person, not even when combating the Enemy [Israel]."[36]

Hegazy portrayed the Christian protesters as the aggressors, attacking and killing "honorable" soldiers. To prove his point, he showed an image of a protester on top of a stalled armored vehicle, throwing a rock at the soldier inside, and a video of a military vehicle-that he claimed was hijacked by a protester-driving wildly into the crowd.

Hegazy’s deceit lies in the fact that the "hijacked" vehicle running amok, and the one stalled and attacked by a protester, were one and the same vehicle: Al Dalil revealed that both vehicles had the same identification number.[37] In other words, when the vehicle in which a soldier was chasing and running over protesters finally stalled, the protesters then attacked it. Egypt’s leaders willfully manipulated the footage to exonerate themselves and portray the Copts as violent aggressors.

Several eyewitnesses, including Muslims, further stated that, to hide the "evidence," they saw soldiers hurling the mutilated bodies of those run over into the nearby Nile River.[38]

As Copts have long suspected, the "thugs" (al-baltagiyya) who always appear in protests attacking Christians seem to be men whom the military uses to create an excuse to open fire and exercise brutality. Muslim eyewitnesses say they saw the thugs coming with State Security:[39] Al Dalil showed a video clip of a soldier exposed dressed as a civilian, interspersed among Coptic protesters, and other videos showing the thugs cooperating with the military.

A video[40] might offer the greatest proof: Days before the massacre, when Copts were protesting the destruction of their latest church,[41] around 20 Egyptian soldiers and security personnel captured a protester and mercilessly beat him (while calling him an "infidel," to put the beating in context).[42] Mixed among the military (camouflage uniforms) and security (black uniforms) is what appears to be a plainclothes civilian, who proceeds to stab the Christian protestor in the head with a knife several times; the victim later received 20 stitches. The plainclothesman is most likely a member of the military or security, dressed as a civilian for stealth purposes, otherwise he would not have been able to move among them so casually.

The Role of the Egyptian State Media (or "War is Deceit")[43]

"Egyptian TV"-demonstrating, unsurprisingly, that state-run media always serve dictatorial regimes-merely propagated the lies of the Military Council.

Even as armored vehicles were mowing down Christian protesters, Egyptian TV broadcast footage of reporters saying, "Help, the Copts are killing our heroic, patriotic soldiers and burning Qurans!" One segment on Egyptian TV had an outraged reporter condemning Christians-"as if they were the Israeli enemy"-for killing "our noble protectors [soldiers], who never once fired a single shot."[44] As a result, many Muslims took to the streets brutally attacking Christians and their property.

Egyptian TV also lied by saying three soldiers died at the hands of Copts: officials at the TV station later confessed to making it up.[45] That, however, did not stop a barrage of op-eds in Egypt blaming the Christians for their own massacre.[46]

Due to Egyptian TV’s misinformation, several Egyptian reporters unequivocally condemned it. Anchorwoman Dina said: "I am ashamed that I work at this despicable TV channel… Egyptian TV was effectively calling for civil war between Muslims and Christians… Egyptian TV has proven that it is a slave to those who rule." Another news anchor, Mahmoud Yousif, announced that he "washes his hands of what Egyptian TV is broadcasting."[47]

Anti-Christian Hate

Although it should be clear that anti-Christian sentiment fueled this latest Muslim slaughter of Christian minorities, a few specifics follow:

Soldiers screamed "Allahu Akbar!" and cursed "Infidels!" as they approached and attacked the protesters[48]-which of course is not so unexpected when one considers that, even in olden times and in movies, the Egyptian military was called the Jihadiyya (the organization that wages holy war).
A video of a soldier boasting that he shot a Christian in the chest is greeted by the crowd around him with "Allahu Akbar!"[49]
After the incident, Dr. Hind Hanafi, president of the University of Cairo, recommended separating wounded Christians from wounded Muslims admitted into the hospital, thereby institutionalizing religious discrimination, even in hospitals.[50]

Conclusion

A massacre at this level never occurred during the thirty-year reign of ousted president Hosni Mubarak, and yet Mubarak is being charged with "crimes against Egyptians." What about the Military Council? It has committed greater crimes-even though it has been in charge for less than a year. Saddam Hussein was condemned by the international community for using chemicals on his own people; where are the international community, the media, and the so-called human rights groups when it comes to a government running over its own civilians with armored vehicles and having "death squads" of snipers shooting at them?

Finally, if this report testifies to crimes against humanity, consider what it says about diplomacy: If Egyptian leadership lies and deceives to suppress its internal "infidel" citizens-whose "crime" was to object to the continual destruction of their churches[51]-how credible can it be to external "infidels," such as the U.S.?

APPENDIX B

The following list of articles and reports by the author further discuss the plight of Egypt’s Copts:

TRANSCRIPT OF RAYMOND IBRAHIM’S TESTIMONY

TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

DECEMBER 7, 2011

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m taking somewhat of a different approach. I think one of the best things to begin to understand the situation for the Copts and how it’s being exacerbated is – excuse me – is to establish context, for starters. And the fact is, what we are hearing about tonight – or today, I’m sorry – is about a phenomenon that has been going on for about fourteen hundred years. This is not something new. The sort of – and so the key to understand to where we are today is to establish the continuity from former centuries past. And the amazing thing is, when you look at history – and this is my field, history and doctrine, when you look at these two – especially history, you will find that what happened to the Coptic people when Islam invaded Egypt in the 7th Century, and as recorded by reliable Muslim historians, medieval Muslim historians who had no great love for the Copts, when you look at these texts, you will find that they are identical to what is happening today. And there’s – I mean, it’s – the parallels are just outstanding how just identical they are. And I’ll just give you some examples. Of course, there’s the attacks on Copts in general. That has been going on. Attacks on churches. I was reading the other day from a medieval source, a primary source from a Muslim who talked about in one emir’s reign in that time they destroyed three thousand churches. Abduction of girls. Christian girls and rape. And forced conversions. Plunder as expectations from second-class citizen Copts, taking what’s called the jizya, collective punishment.

All of these have past precedents for fourteen hundred years and are well documented in Islam’s own historical texts. Now when you look at that and you bring it to today and we fast forward to the 21st Century and what we’re seeing today, to me, this is the key. Now you understand that this is not an aberration. What we’re seeing. This is not something strange. But rather part and parcel of Islamic history, especially in Egypt. And I’m mentioning to you Islamic primary sources and I think that’s important because these are not sources that were written by, you know, polemicists or Christians or non-Muslims, but by Islam’s own most authoritative and revered historians and theologians. And they make it unequivocally clear that Islam, from its entrance into Egypt, decimated the Coptic people and their churches and all but their civilization. There were a few, of course, times when it was better and then it would get worse. And, you know, one guy – one, for example, person, he’s known as Al-Maqrizi and he’s one of the most popular and authoritative historians of Egypt, medieval Egypt. And he, again, while you read it and you see that he’s a very faithful Muslim and he has no great sympathy for the Copts, he is so objective and he declares all of these points that we are talking about today. So the reason I bring this to you, again, is to show that the continuity is there. This is nothing new. This is nothing strange. Now we come up to – I mentioned a little bit of history, I’d like to quickly discuss some doctrinal issues.

The word dhimmi, which was not known before, but has become somewhat famous nowadays and including a new coinage of it, which is dhimmitude – and I think that’s all good, because these words need to come out in the open. I think it’s also a little bad, because they’ve been somewhat taken out of context and popularized inaccurately, but the word itself in fact is integral to Islamic law. The word dhimmi. And from the beginning of Islam’s entry into Egypt and the other non-Muslim territories, dhimmi is a person, a non-Muslim, who of course does not accept Islam, wants to maintain their religious identity, in this case the Christian Copts, but to do so, they have to accept several debilitating and humiliating circumstances. And this goes to the Koran. The Koran itself, Koran 9, surah 9, verse 29, says to Muslims, fight the people of the book – and these, of course, include Jews and Christians – until they pay the jizya, which basically means tribute, to their overlords, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued. Now this is the Koran and to Muslims, the infallible word of God that transcends all time and is applied back then in the era that I’m discussing and to many Muslims today applies to today and needs to be upheld vis a vis people like the Copts, non-Muslims. So what it ultimately means is – this concept of dhimmi is someone who does not want to become a Muslim, who willingly has to accept second class citizen status, and whose rights ultimately depend on the goodwill of the Muslim overlords.

And another seminal treatise that was written and goes back and it’s called The Pact of Umar, named after either the first khalif or probably another khalif by the same name, but this pact, again, when you read it, it was what Christians had to sign in order to not be molested and destroyed. And among the things that it says is number one, we cannot – we Christians cannot build or repair our churches. We cannot practice our religion openly. We must show respect to Muslims. We must not offend Muslims. It even says we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit down. All of this was enforced then, all of it is coming back now in strong force. Now, all of it has been now, for example, the issue of churches in Egypt. As you see, there are always being attacked, they are always being destroyed. As far as the government is concerned, it’s like pulling teeth just to try to get a permit to repair a church. And again, this goes to this. These pacts and these doctrines, which are so little known in the West and which seem to be just some – you talk to people about it, they hear these words and they think these are just some sort of throwback from ancient history, they’re really not that relevant today, but they’re immensely relevant to those and to the practitioners of the faith who think of these as divine institutions of their religion. And then there’s another aspect to all of this. I’ve discussed the historic and the doctrinal aspects of keeping Copts and others, non-Muslims, suppressed. But there’s a word that’s not well known at all and it was coined – in a few decades ago – and it’s called Islamicate. And what Islamicate means is that just because Islam teaches, let’s say X, Y, and Z, but as a culture, a Muslim need not necessarily be a religious or a pious Muslim to start doing these things. Because they become ingrained and permeate the culture. So seeing a Copt as, for example, a second class citizen, whether you’re a secular Muslim or not, these sorts of things feed into the culture and the worldview of the general populace of Egypt. And so the radical Muslim, of course, will be more hostile and more fierce. But even the general Muslim or the people in the military who do not identify themselves as radicals, because of the fourteen hundred years of these institutionalized forms of discrimination, these ideas have become just part of the worldview of so many people in Egypt, unfortunately. And, but usually it became into sort of discrimination.

But now as you see these Islamist parties, not just the Salafists, who are getting, you know, lots of, I think, twenty percent of the vote, and what are they doing? They’re going beyond little things like just discrimination. And now they want to reinstitutionalize things like the jizya. Which again goes back – this goes back to that Koranic verse I read, which says fight them until they pay tribute. Jizya means paying tribute, which is a way of acknowledging that you are a second class citizen and you’re buying your life. Because you’re paying for it, you’re being blackmailed. And so now these people who are being voted into the new government of Egypt, the Salafists, are calling openly for the return of jizya. And of course, it’s not just a matter of money, but with the return of jizya comes all of these other aspects of quote/unquote dhimmitude. To be expected of Copts. Which includes no more churches at all whatsoever. No more – you have to hide your religious identity. No crosses in public. And so forth. And all of these other types of debilitations. Now, and then you have the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, of course, the problem is, I think there’s so many people who see the Brotherhood and the Salafists as sort of, you know, one’s moderate and one’s radical. That’s, of course, a joke. The Muslim Brotherhood – a better way to see it, or to give you an American analogy is you can think of them as the Muslim Brotherhood are the Democrats and the Salafists are the Republicans. In other words, they’re two faces of the same coin. Because in America, Democrats and Republicans, of course, have different viewpoints. But they are all based on the same source and they’re all based on the same paradigm. And it’s the same for these Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood. Whatever their little differences are, they all go back and trace their sources to shariah law. Which is not very – which is clear cut what it says. But also, the Muslim Brotherhood are a little smarter than the Salafists. Because they know the game and they know they’re not going to sit up now and start talking about institutionalizing jizya. Or dhimmi status for Copts. They’re not going to say that now. Whereas the Salafists will say it now. But at any rate, now you have these two groups who are about sixty percent – who won sixty percent of the votes. And their opinions of the Copts go straight back to what I was discussing from fourteen hundred years ago. Which is this worldview that they are there to be plundered, kept suppressed, and their churches destroyed. And this is why we’re seeing it all now.

Now I started earlier by saying that somewhat – we’re here having a hearing about a phenomenon that’s been going fourteen hundred years. So why are we having a hearing? Why is this new? It’s new because we – it’s sort of, this goes to somewhat of intellectual history, but if you look at what happened the last two hundred years with the colonial era, when the Western powers invaded and colonized the Muslim world, what happened then is, and this is a fact, that so many of the Muslims turned their back on Islam, in a way. In other words, they were just secular and Islam was something that, you know, was not taken seriously. And this is well known. And a perfect example, of course, is Ataturk, who abolished the caliphate in 1928, I believe, and he, of course, this was the nation which was the head of the Muslim world. So right at the early 20th Century, what you had is Muslims were experimenting with Westernizing and secularizing and modernization and nationalism. This is what happened. Now during that era, yes, Coptic persecution was markedly subdued. And this is also a fact. The discrimination, the subtle things, they were still there. But the sort of wholesale attacks that we’re seeing today were really not that present. Now what this has done, though, because this sort of – or this new approach, went on for a few generations, is it’s created a Western worldview that does not see the earlier precedents or the past history. So now, in history classes, when we discuss – when we discuss the history of the Middle East and Egypt, we just start talking about the Muslim world or from about the 1900s and the 20th Century, where no, there wasn’t a lot of persecution and, if anything, the paradigm is that the West was the evil oppressive force and the Muslim world was not. So this, I think, has created an intellectual hurdle to understand what’s really going on.

And of course it’s exacerbated tremendously by the Western mainstream media, which some of my colleagues have pointed out, never really reports the truth or really equivocates. They use the term sectarian strife. When you have a few thousand Muslims who go burn down a church and they call that sectarian strife, which in my mind, suggests, you know, two equal – equally powerful forces, like Sunnis and Shias killing each other. And that’s not the case. But the media tries so hard to come off neutral. And I even remember during the Maspero massacre where, you know, the tanks were intentionally running down and mowing over Copts and killing them and opening fire, FOX News, which is considered the, you know, the conservative balanced one, was telling us about how soldiers were crying as they watched Copts attack their fellow soldiers. Okay, and so – and then, you know, the holders and articulators of knowledge in the West have completely undermined reality. And the same goes with academia. Academia, especially area studies, seems to exist solely now just to put the best spin on things and to make, you know, if, you know, your area of study is the Muslim world, none of these things that we’re talking about, these historical aspects, these primary sources, Koranic and historical, that I’m quoting, you’ll never hear these. And I know from firsthand experience, I was at Georgetown, for instance, for awhile, and every class was based upon how either the Islamic world has been abused or how, you know, we have to understand them, we have to appease them and this sort of thing. So it is unfortunate that we have all these intellectual hurdles that are making something that is fourteen hundred years old and so obvious to anyone who has studied this and looked at this, it’s unintelligible to us today. And we have to have a hearing to even start talking about it. And it is because of all of these forces, you know, whether they’re intellectual history and sort of anachronisms or whether it’s the mainstream media and political correctness run amok or academia. But this is the situation we’re at. And there’s nothing new. But I think the only – the good news apparently is that we’re still in the early stage. There’s still many Egyptians in Egypt, including Muslims who are not of that variety who are not the Salafists or the Muslim Brotherhood and so we are not exactly in the medieval era where it’s a wholesale massacre. And so I think there is some light at the end of the tunnel. And what needs to be done, of course, is to support and as my colleagues all said, the aid must be conditional upon these sorts of things.

We must identify and support the liberal voices. Because they are our friends. The idea of saying, you know, democracy, using that word and, you know, everything has to stop before that word, is ridiculous. Because what’s being – what’s happening in Egypt is democracy means the people are going to bring the sort of government that they want. And ostensibly that sounds good and fair. But what is – when they bring a fascistic government, you know, Hitler, for instance, the people brought him to power. The people had support for him. So that doesn’t mean we should – what I submit, then, is we should not always be – stand beholden before the word democracy as if it’s this sort of sacrosanct thing. We have to understand it’s a mode of government. But what really matters is what the people themselves do create with this mode once they’re empowered.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copt#Etymology

[2] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.asp

[3] http://www.raymondibrahim.com/10608/top-muslim-declares-christians-infidels

[4] http://www.raymondibrahim.com/10742/grand-mufti-distorts-word-infidel-to-dupe-infidels

[5] http://www.uam.es/otroscentros/medina/egypt/egypolcon.htm

[6] http://www.meforum.org/2631/dissident-watch-mohammed-hegazy#_ftn5

[7] http://archive.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news%E2%8C%A9=en&length=long&idelement=5209&backpage=archives&critere=&countryname=Egypt&rowcur=25

[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKaGr75r34w

[9] http://www.youtube.com/user/thecopticmartyrs?gl=US#p/u/15/qyn2Yow1aN8

[10] http://islamexplained.com/UVG/UVG_video_player/TabId/89/VideoId/791/037—-.aspx

[11] http://news.yahoo.com/24-dead-worst-cairo-riots-since-mubarak-ouster-232452205.html

[12] http://www.light-dark.net/vb/showthread.php?p=4939#post4939

[13] http://www.aina.org/news/20110908193725.htm

[14] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.asp

[15] http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/09/20/who%E2%80%99s-in-charge-of-the-holy-sepulchre/

[16] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zlWL35PE4&feature=player_embedded#!

[17] http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/two-churches-torched-in-indonesia/456930

[18] http://www.light-dark.net/vb/showthread.php?p=4939#post4939

[19] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12101748

[20] http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8968/no-revolution-for-egypt-christians

[21] http://www.raymondibrahim.com/9595/muslim-inferiority-complex-kills-christians

[22] http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Attacks-against-Coptic-churches,-part-of-a-plan-to-expel-Egypt%E2%80%99s-Christians-22828.html

[23] http://www.aina.org/news/20111004183833.htm

[24] http://www.raymondibrahim.com/10498/the-egyptian-military-crimes-against-humanity

[25] http://www.dostor.org/opinion/11/october/17/58242

[26] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1sbJehl-ms

[27] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo0qxrg0Ink&feature=related

[28] http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=gI4T1UUoOt0

[29] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsP2qqBf-0I

[30] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo51tpAWgyE&feature=related

[31] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2tJBygSFys

[32] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBZ0Xbk8xUQ

[33] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVZYYzr5WHk&feature=related

[34] http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.269

[35] http://www.copts.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3358&Itemid=1

[36] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5TbgK8Mlkk

[37] http://islamexplained.com/UVG/UVG_video_player/TabId/89/VideoId/800/038—-.aspx

[38] http://www.light-dark.net/vb/showthread.php?p=9936#post9936

[39] http://m.elfagr.org/dailyPortal_NewsDetails.aspx?nwsId=8178&secid=10

[40] http://www.youtube.com/user/thecopticmartyrs?gl=US&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2Fthecopticmartyrs%3Fgl%3DUS#p/u/28/IXYgzHRYRxQ&has_verified=1

[41] http://www.raymondibrahim.com/10492/egypt-destroying-churches

[42] http://www.aina.org/news/2011109123846.htm

[43] http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

[44] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7m08JJdxao

[45] http://bikyamasr.com/45280/egypt-state-television-admits-to-making-up-news-over-soldiers-deaths/

[46] http://www.aina.org/news/20111017175249.htm

[47] http://www.arabnet5.com/news.asp?c=2&id=113867

[48] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKaGr75r34w

[49] http://www.youtube.com/user/thecopticmartyrs?gl=US#p/u/15/qyn2Yow1aN8

[50] http://islamexplained.com/UVG/UVG_video_player/TabId/89/VideoId/791/037—-.aspx

[51] http://www.hudson-ny.org/2489/egypt-destroying-churches

Mapping a National Security Failure: Ratification of the New START Treaty

October 30, 2011Ben Lerner

On December 22, 2010, the United States Senate voted to ratify the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms—known more popularly as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or “New START.” At its most basic level, New START imposed ceilings on the number of strategic nuclear warheads and launchers that could be deployed by the United States or Russia. Substantively, however, New START was a severely flawed treaty with numerous negative implications for U.S. national security, both in terms of what the treaty outlined in its text as well as what was omitted from it.

Equally problematic, New START was pushed through the Senate through a flawed process that emphasized speedy ratification at the expense of fully informed and balanced deliberation, particularly with respect to missile defense, and that enabled the Obama administration to use questionable pledges of nuclear modernization to persuade key Senators to vote in favor of the treaty—pledges that can reasonably be called into question given subsequent developments.

In order to fully understand the substantive and procedural pitfalls that came to define the New START treaty and the push for its ratification, it is necessary first to place the treaty in the context of two of the Obama administration’s major foreign policy objectives: 1) the intent to “reset” the U.S. relationship with Russia; and 2) the desire to bring about a “world without nuclear weapons.”

RUSSIAN “RESET”

The Obama administration’s prioritization of U.S.-Russia relations manifested itself early, at the highest levels. On February 7, 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden addressed the 45^th Munich Conference on Security Policy, during which he stated in part:

The United States rejects the notion that NATO’s gain is Russia’s loss, or that Russia’s strength is NATO’s weakness. The last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our Alliance. It is time—to paraphrase President Obama—it’s time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.[1]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would famously follow up on Vice President Biden’s address with a visit to Russia’s then-Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, presenting him with a prop “reset button” as an official (if theatrical) signal that the Obama administration was seeking a renewed relationship with Russia.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Are We Safer? An Online Symposium on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11

September 8, 2011Center for Security Policy

Introduction

The tenth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001 is, inevitably, a moment not only for remembering, but for reflection. It is a time for thoughtful consideration about how far we have come with respect to learning appropriate lessons. It also affords a chance to make a renewed commitment to ensuring that our nation and people are more secure in the years to come than we were on that horrible day.

To these ends, the Center for Security Policy invited an array of individuals – some of whom are currently in office, many of whom previously held senior positions in the United States government, still others of whom simply bring unique experiences and insights – to engage in such reflection. We are proud to present in the form of brief essays their assessments of whether America is safer today than we were a decade ago, and what more can and must be done.

Our purpose is to provide more than snapshots of a nation at risk and one-off recommendations about how to mitigate the dangers that, regrettably, we continue to face. Rather, we aspire to have these analyses serve collectively as a sort of baseline against which needed corrective actions – past, present and perhaps most importantly future – can evaluated and measured.

A dedicated page has been created at our website, securefreedom.org, to provide a vehicle for the authors to update their analyses and recommendations over time, should they choose to do so. This page also allows others to provide feedback and help track progress towards the realization of such proposed remedies in communities, states and at the national level.

The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Center for Security Policy. All are put forward here out of a sense of appreciation for the commitment to our country of those who hold them and in the hope that, by sharing their insights and suggestions, America will not only be far more secure in the future than it was ten years ago, but than it is today.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President and CEO
Center for Security Policy

Are We Safer? An Online Symposium on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11

(PDF, 44 pages, 250KB)

Contributors

Morrie Amitay, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Michaela Bendikova, The Heritage Foundation
David R. Bockel, the Reserve Officers Association
Matthew RJ Brodsky, Jewish Policy Center
Kevin Brogan
Richard Falknor, Maryland Center-Right Coalition
Fred Fleitz, LIGNET.com
Christopher Ford, The Hudson Institute
Brigitte Gabriel, ACT for America
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Center for Security Policy
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
John Guandolo, Strategic Engagement Group
Peter Huessy, GeoStrategic Analysis
Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader
Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
Frances C. Lane
Dr. J.P. London, CACI International, Inc.
James “Ace” Lyons, former Commander-in-Chief, US Pacific Fleet
Ryan Mauro, Christian Action Network
Matt Mayer, The Heritage Foundation
Faith J. H. McDonnell, the Institute on Religion and Democracy
Jon Perdue, the Fund for American Studies
Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum
Ken Timmerman, Foundation for Democracy in Iran
Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell (R-AK)
Tom Trento, The United West
Michelle Van Cleave
Diana West, Death of the Grown-Up
David Yerushalmi, Center for Security Policy

Morrie Amitay

Ten years after the destruction of the Twin Towers by Islamist terrorists, we have been fortunate that there have not been any recurrences of this tragic event here. This is due to a combination of luck, and a number of well-meaning, though still inadequate, steps taken to protect ourselves.

But we have still not done nearly enough to strike at the most dangerous enabler of worldwide terrorism – the Islamic Republic of Iran. With its ongoing support of Hezbollah, Hamas, along with ties to Al-Qaeda, infiltration into Africa, South America, and elsewhere, Tehran is not only seeking regional hegemony, but the eventual worldwide triumph of radical Islam.

Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its enmity toward the US and our allies cannot be ended by striking any “grand bargain” that would have to rely on false promises and be subject to evasion. We should not expect a shred of goodwill or candor on the part of a mortal enemy. To date, the half-hearted application of sanctions, and feeble support for internal regime change in Iran have not deterred Iran from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It has both continued and increased its direct support for the killing of Americans and innocent civilians.

If we are to guard ourselves from future catastrophes even worse than 9/11, our government will have to act more decisively and forcefully. In doing so, it will have the support of Congress and the American people.

Morris J.”Morrie” Amitay, is the founder and treasurer of the Washington Political Action Committee and Vice Chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). [Back to top]

Michaela Bendikova

The events of 9/11 contributed to one of the most profound changes in U.S. strategic thinking since the beginning of the missile age. With the dawn of the War on Terror, the Bush Administration came to realize that the world was a different place than it had been during the Cold War and abrogated the almost 30 years-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. No longer would the population be held hostage to a nuclear strike in the name of “stability.”

This is not to say, however, that the United States or its allies are any safer. Ballistic missile proliferation has continued apace, while both post-9/11 administrations have neglected the most effective means of protecting the nation-space-based missile defenses. While the United States would have to invest resources to reconstitute its ability to develop space-based interceptors, the Brilliant Pebbles program of 1990s has proved that such a system would not only be possible but would also be economically viable.

Yet, while Iran moves ever closer to the development of nuclear weapon and long-range ballistic missile capabilities, the Obama Administration instead chose to cut the missile defense budget in the first year of its administration to the point that it has yet not recovered. Safer? With a limited sea- and ground-based capability – maybe. Considering massive military and modernization programs of other countries’ nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles-not so much.

Michaela Bendikova is a Research Assistant for Missile Defense and Foreign Policy with The Heritage Foundation. [Back to top]

David R. Bockel

As many of us recall, September 11, 2001 could not have been a more beautiful day in Washington, DC. The sky was a crystal-clear blue and the temperature was in the low 70’s. I was attending a meeting of the Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee in a secure conference room on the Army E-Ring at the Pentagon. Around 9:00 we were interrupted with word of the first plane hitting the Trade Center. Just minutes later, we heard about the second plane. Our collective understanding was that it was an act of terror. We discussed going across the hall to the Army G-3 office to see the television report at our first break.

Thirty minutes later the third plane hit the Pentagon. Although we were only a couple of corridors away, we heard the impact more than felt it. As we exited down Corridor 6 to the South Parking lot, we could only see the smoke. It was only when we made our way back to Crystal City that we learned it was the 3rd plane and not a bomb. But I clearly remember, as I was exiting the Pentagon, I stopped on the A Ring where I could look outside and saw the huge cloud of smoke. My thought then was that I was glad that I was still in uniform because I would still be serving my country as the situation developed. I am a Vietnam veteran and I was not particularly pleased with my service back in 1966-67. I wanted another chance to be a better soldier. As fate would have it, the only friend I lost in the Pentagon was an Army general who I had served with in Vietnam. We had spent a few brief minutes together just the day before.

It is now 10 years later and I have not worn the uniform since 2003. Although I did not get to join the fight in the combat zone, I did have the opportunity to be part of the mobilization of our Reserve and National Guard forces for all that would follow. So, how do I view our men and women in uniform a decade later? I remember saying when I retired from the Army in 2003 that I did not want our citizens to see these brave people as “victims.” It is almost a national pastime to turn people into victims for political purposes. I wanted them to be viewed as the ultimate security of this great nation. People who volunteered to put their lives on the line for their country and its citizens. People we would look up to with pride. I believe that to be true today.

I think we have mostly succeeded in keeping these brave Americans and their families safe from politics, although that gravitational pull is strong for some in politics and the media. I am proud of their service. I am proud of their military leaders. I am proud of their accomplishments. But I am saddened by the faces I see every week in the Military Times of those who gave their lives that they pledged freely when they signed up.

I hope and pray that all come home soon, alive and in one piece and are reunited with their families, friends, and employers who, in the words of John Milton, “also serve who only stand and wait.” It may be reflected glory, but I am particularly proud to have worn the same uniform.

Major General (Ret) David R. Bockel is Executive Director of the Reserve Officers Association. He will shortly assume a new role as Executive Director of the Georgia Military Affairs Coordinating Committee. [Back to top]

Matthew RJ Brodsky

Today, the United States is safer than it was 10 years earlier, the day before the attacks of September 11, 2001. But we are not as safe as we could be. The 9/11 Commission concluded in its July 2004 report that the attacks revealed a failure in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management. In the years that followed, the U.S. government’s response to the challenge of international terrorism has been considerable. The Department of Homeland Security was created, combining 22 agencies with a workforce of over 200,000 people and an annual budget topping $50 billion. 263 organizations have been either redesigned or established. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center were created to advance the difficult task unifying intelligence gathering and sharing efforts across the intelligence community. The intelligence budget has more than doubled from 2001 to over $80 billion. Significant reforms were introduced and implemented, resulting in the disruption of many terrorist plots and bringing to justice many terrorist operatives.

Just as America’s counterterrorism efforts adapted, terrorists’ tactics have also evolved. The attacks on 9/11 may have been carried out by al-Qaeda, but the threat today is not merely from one centralized terrorist group. Bin Laden became the ideological leader of a jihadist movement that spawned many organizations throughout the world, many of which operated without his direction, and will continue to operate now after his death. Al-Qaeda 2.0 has seen the creation of affiliates from North Africa, to the Persian Gulf, to the Philippines and Indonesia. Today, the most substantial foreign al-Qaeda threat is in the Arabian Peninsula, where American-born Anwar al-Awlaki continues to play a leading role. It was in Yemen where explosives were packed into toner cartridges and shipped on Fed Ex and UPS cargo flights to synagogues in Chicago. While the October 2010 plot failed, it demonstrates that terrorists are able to test U.S. counterterrorism efforts in new and innovative ways. This is bound to continue.

Today, the greatest threat to American national security comes from al-Qaeda’s strategy of diversification, or attacks carried out by a variety of perpetrators from different ethnic and national backgrounds. This includes the troubling rise in the recruitment of American citizens and residents—the homegrown terrorist who often engages in a process of self-radicalization. Threats to cyber-security and critical infrastructure systems also remain real and current dangers.

While effective counterterrorism strategy requires a focus on disrupting the capabilities of those who would attempt to harm Americans, it must be understood that Islamist terrorism is not merely about individuals; it is the result of a murderous ideology. Winning the war of ideas is as critical as disrupting and detaining terrorists if the Global War on Terror is to be won in the future.

Matthew RJ Brodsky is the Director of Policy at the Jewish Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly. [Back to top]

Kevin Brogan

John Adams said to his wife, Abigail, that he must study war, so his sons may have liberty to study mathematics and science in order to give their children the opportunity to study art and music. This was his design for a more perfect union, a strategy toward common purpose and a world without war. Adams’ theorized that a just war would bring about a society free from fear, free from want. It had been more than 200 years since Adams’ lessons — and a history of tested theories — when an attack on the U.S. homeland sent America back to school. Once again we have to study war.

Are we safer? Perhaps, under the guise of studying war we are secure in our strength. However, we are still victim to terrorism, suggesting that we are studying war out of scope. In our latest erudition we have not eliminated fear — not in the same fashion in which we eliminated the fear from, say, World War II. We have taken few steps in transitioning our successes to a strategy that brings reassurance to the warzone, or even the homeland. This void in the aftermath of victories creates a fear of winning the war while losing the peace.

Are we safer? Not if safer means more secure in the math and science of a global economy. Our current approach to war does not allow a new economy to take form in a new world. We may need to analyze the wisdom of cutting the defense budget during two wars without creating a Middle East Marshall Plan to fill the needs of a civilized world. Some may argue against this policy – calling it nation-building — but history has shown that after the war, simple commerce provides the first order of well-being. Consider Reconstruction of the South or – after WWII — the math and science of the 50s and 60s and arts and music of the 70s and 80s. Ten years into these wars and we are moving backwards against the prosperity that Adams’ progression dictates.

Are we safer? Not if safer means a freedom from want in our pursuit of a better life for all. Our quest for prosperity has taken a back seat to a misguide stimulus economy, which is being weighed down by missed opportunities to progress passed war. We are ignoring Adams’ lessons of promoting the general welfare from the strategy of war. Efforts of the past such as interstate infrastructure, NASA programs, and defense initiatives are being cancelled or cut. This failure to progress to Adams’ next philosophical level has created a dark cloud of a recession that will not allow prosperity to shine.

Are we safer? Probably, but are we better off? It is not for me to say, but in the pursuit of two wars, the science of global economy lags; the tranquility of the arts is forced to wait. We have been studying war for far too long with no movement toward global security. It is time to progress to a civil society. Perhaps the question should be whether we are advancing the goals of civilization to study math and science to in order to bring about the tranquility of arts and music. In the correct approach to this question we may find the security of which Adams spoke.

Kevin Brogan is a defense policy studies specialist, currently working in the private sector. [Back to top]

Richard Falknor

“You think we are fighting a war over there. I think we are fighting a war right here.” –Steve Coughlin

American conservatives generally try to move along three essential and closely related lines: pushing smaller government and freer markets; strengthening a culture of Judaeo-Christian values; and maintaining a robust (but prudent) national and homeland defense.

For those of us who have been working side-by-side first with long-time grass-roots conservatives and later with autonomous Tea Parties as that movement took powerful shape, the disaster of 9/11 put security concerns on to center stage.

But the enormous spending and debt challenges we face put even an “adequate” defense capability in danger. Many center-right allies don’t have a grasp of how our military still maintains a Pax Americana and what our world would look without it and what our daily life would become when savage nations would, by virtue of superior military capabilities, be able to intimidate us all.

Moreover one national group urging a smaller Federal government also proposes what is essentially a platform of isolationism. Before the rise of the Tea Party movement, this isolationist group was too often the only organized alternative for citizens opposing to the bigger-government approach of both major parties on the state as well as the national levels. Many if not most of their members joined for that reason, and are consequently teachable about national defense. The professional defense community, moreover, had also overlooked the grass roots with predictable consequences.

Compounding these problems is the apparent alliance of Political Islam with the American Left. And if this was not enough of a danger, last February David Horowitz pointed out the danger of Political Islam penetrating the conservative movement itself.

“Creeping Shariah” may well be weakening our intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities. And sailing under the protection of political correctness, its adherents and fellow travelers have made some state and local politicians afraid of confronting it.

So what is to be done? Here are a few recommendations:

On the grass-roots level, defense experts must explain to conservative activists — in plain words — why we need the right levels of support to meet which essential world-wide commitments.

Activists need to have enough information effectively to urge maintaining and upgrading our nuclear deterrent – – as well as building a homeland defense that would enable us to survive and rebuild after less-understood threats like an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

Few conservatives are going to be persuaded about world-wide commitments, however, unless national defense voices are also heard giving priority to pacifying our borderlands with Mexico.

Mark Steyn captured the larger picture just after the 2006 elections:

. . . [Y]ou can’t be in favor of assertive American foreign policy overseas and increasing Europeanization domestically; likewise, you can’t take a reductively libertarian view while the rest of the planet goes to pieces. Someone in the GOP needs to do what Ronald Reagan did so brilliantly a quarter-century ago – reconcile the big challenges abroad with a small-government philosophy at home.

There was once a time in America when “politics stopped at the water’s edge” on defense and foreign policy. Today, however, we must build support for our basic security priorities, not just in Washington, D. C., but among concerned citizens coming together at the local level across the country.

Richard W. C. Falknor is Chairman of the Maryland Center-Right Coalition. [Back to top]

Fred Fleitz

The question is not whether our nation is safer now than it was before 9/11. The question is whether we are safe enough.

Important reforms were implemented after 9/11 allowing better cooperation between U.S. intelligence agencies and foreign intelligence services. Barriers erected between the CIA and the FBI that impeded tracking the al Qaeda hijackers before the 9/11 attacks were torn down. These reforms made a real difference in protecting our nation from foreign threats.

The Bush administration deserves enormous credit for its aggressive programs against al Qaeda. These programs yielded crucial intelligence that stopped over a dozen attacks against the U.S. homeland, U.S. troops, and American allies by radical Jihadist terrorists. Despite an outcry in the media, by Congressional Democrats, and by Barrack Obama, both before and after he became president, that these programs somehow violated the civil rights of Americans, such claims were never proven since they were clearly false.

We learned on December 25, 2009 that we still have work to do to improve our intelligence capabilities when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen sent on a suicide mission by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), nearly blew up a civilian airliner over the city of Detroit with an undetectable bomb sewn into his underwear. Only the brave and swift action by the plane’s passengers and crew prevented the bomb from detonating.

The Christmas Day underwear bomber illustrated two significant security issues facing our nation today. First, radical Jihadists continue to look for ways to penetrate our security. There have been other close calls like this, including a sophisticated and powerful package bomb that AQAP attempted to ship to the United States by air from Yemen in October 2010 that also was nearly undetectable. This threat requires vigilance and a realization that al Qaeda and its affiliates may be down, but they have not yet been beaten.

The second threat concerns the U.S. intelligence community and how post-9/11 reforms made it more unwieldy and bureaucratic. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in a June 2010 report that systemic failures across the Intelligence Community contributed to the failure to identify the threat posed by Abulmutallab. We now know that adequate intelligence existed that could have prevented Abulmutallab from boarding a plane to the United States but our intelligence agencies were not talking to each other or assumed another organization was handling certain information, problems that post-9/11 intelligence reforms supposedly addressed. This is a consequence of the 9/11 Commission’s unfortunate recommendation to add another layer of bureaucracy onto the already bloated U.S intelligence community – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). This new bureaucratic layer has hurt the quality of U.S. intelligence , especially analysis, which in some ways is worse than it was before 9/11. To produce the intelligence our president and his advisors need to protect our country requires a leaner and much more efficient U.S. intelligence community. This should start by dismantling the ODNI and streamlining the operations of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.

We are certainly safer today that we were on September 10, 2001. However, we cannot let down our guard and we must push forward with additional steps to fine tune post-9/11 intelligence reforms to create a nimble and more efficient intelligence community that will be better able to detect and prevent future security threats.

Fred Fleitz spent 25 years working on national security issues for the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee. He is now managing editor of LIGNET.com, a new Washington, DC-based service providing global intelligence and forecasting. [Back to top]

Christopher Ford

Ten years after the grim September morning on which Islamist terrorists smashed hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan and into the Pentagon – and failed to fly a fourth into the Capitol or the White House – Americans have cause to reflect with pride on their government’s successful prevention of further attacks.

On this anniversary, of course, the media will surely serve up a smorgasbord of analyses encouraging reflection upon everything objectionable about the U.S. “war on terrorism.” While there remains much to debate, however, it is difficult to get around the fact that the much-feared “9/11” follow-up strikes have not occurred. To be sure, a jihadist U.S. Army major murdered 12 of his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, and yes, terrorists continue to exact a toll upon U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. For the most part, however, the additional homeland attacks we all imagined after September 2001 – and which President George W. Bush once described as his greatest nightmare – are a story of the dog that did not bark. And the reason it did not bark has to do with how resolutely and effectively the U.S. Government responded in tightening domestic security and “taking the fight to the terrorists” overseas.

I’ll grant that we’ve also been lucky. We were lucky that the “shoe bomber” failed to ignite the plastic explosive in his sneakers, lucky that the “underwear bomber” similarly botched his crotch bomb, and lucky that the “Times Square bomber” bollixed up the timer for his car full of explosives. But the oddball tactics explored by terrorists still aiming to knock U.S. airliners out of the sky highlight the jihadists’ desperation, and the fact that so many more “normal” avenues of attack have now been closed. Security is vastly improved, people are vigilant, and the terrorists are being kept off balance by aggressive countermoves that have made it much harder to operate from foreign sanctuaries.

There is a temptation, in conservative circles, to give the Bush Administration all the credit for this. After all, it was the one that made the toughest calls, and it was for its pains excoriated in the international and domestic media for an excess of bloody-minded ruthlessness. Nor can one avoid being struck by the degree to which, after some strident anti-Bush rhetoric and political posturing, the administration of Barack Obama has come to embrace most of the counter-terrorist policies of its predecessor. The prison at Guantánamo Bay remains open, for instance, and terrorists are still subject to potentially permanent detention there or elsewhere; military commissions are still being used to try terrorist suspects; CIA-facilitated “renditions” still sometimes occur; domestic electronic surveillance is today conducted on a considerably broader basis than before 9/11; and security and passenger pre-screening for air transportation is ubiquitous and intrusive. In fact, some controversial Bush-era tactics have been not merely validated by the Obama Administration but today greatly expanded – most notably, the policy of carrying out targeted killings of terrorist operatives by drone aircraft or special operations forces, which today occurs with a frequency, and in a number of countries, notably greater than when Bush left office. (As recently illustrated by the case of clerical firebrand Anwar al-Awlaki, even U.S. citizens can be targeted if they throw their lot in with the terrorists.)

But while conservatives can be forgiven for sneering a bit at the way the Obama Administration’s moralistic self-righteousness has been succeeded by a quiet, almost embarrassed validation of Bush-era counter-terrorist policy, we need to give credit where credit is due. Bush policies did not adopt themselves; they were chosen, and it cannot have been easy for Obama’s team to swallow that pill. As a result, however, it is now possible to point to a bipartisan American approach to counter-terrorism. (In a backhanded way, the current administration has in this respect – albeit perhaps in this one only – lived up to its self-congratulatory hype as a purveyor of “post-partisan” policy.) We conservatives should not demean this, for it is significant.

To be sure, ten years after 9/11, we are a grimmer polity than we were, and some innocence has surely been lost. America has become a country that routinely hunts down and kills individual terrorist enemies overseas – apparently now in preference to capturing and detaining them indefinitely – and its citizens put up with more burdensome security restrictions in transportation and in public places than before, as well as with a somewhat less constricted system of domestic electronic surveillance. There is something to mourn in these shifts.

But there is also much of which we should be proud, for although the terrorists were able to slaughter more than 3,000 Americans over the space of a few hours in 2001, their ambitions to inflict more such grievous blows upon the U.S. homeland have been stymied ever since. We may have lost some innocence, moreover, but America still remains a bastion of civil and political freedom and a locus of economic opportunity in a world not precisely overflowing with either of these things. Liberal political hyperbole aside, we have not “become our enemies,” and we remain a free people with a vibrant society.

It is a mark of the success of the United States’ tough-minded – and now, if belatedly, bipartisan – approach to counter-terrorism that our most pressing political issues today are the domestic challenges of debt, job creation, unsustainable entitlement spending, and the appropriate size of government. After a decade of having avoided further mass-casualty international terrorist outrages on our soil after 9/11, we are happily in a position in which it is possible to imagine having another such decade ahead, in which we can remain free to grapple with such parochial issues without airliners landing upon our heads.

Dr. Christopher Ford is a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He previously served as U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation and as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the George W. Bush Administration, and before that as Minority Counsel and then General Counsel for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence after 9/11. [Back to top]

Brigitte Gabriel

In every nation’s history there are events that we say are defining moments — events such as the bombing of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. In turn, events of such outrageous magnitude demand a nation to respond. And in that response I say we find the definition of our nation’s true nature and character. Soon after 9/11 the world saw our response. Our military might went directly to the source in Afghanistan; put Al Qaeda on the run killing top commanders and eventually Bin Laden himself.

That is the military boots on the ground response initiated by Bush and furthered by Obama.

But what is the non military response we offer up in the face of an enemy that is very clear in stating their reasons for attacking us; their holy jihad, their goal of re-establishing the Islamic Caliphate worldwide and subjugating those they call infidels? Simply put, our present Administration and media elites are operating in a state of sheer ignorance and political correctness, twisting like a pretzel trying not to outright identify the motivation behind 9/11 for fear of offending our enemies.

On this 10th anniversary of 9/11 let us remember while fighting this long war openly declared upon us, that…

America stood up to the terror and tyranny of Nazism — and won.

America stood up to the terror and tyranny of Communism – and won.

If we continue to stand up to the terror and tyranny of radical Islam, we will, once again, win.

I know what we face. I lost my country of Lebanon to Radical Islam. I do not want to lose my country of adoption. That is why, after 9/11, I launched what today is ACT for America. ACT for America is the largest national security grassroots organization in the U.S. with 175,000 members and over 600 chapters nationwide with a full- time lobbyist on Capitol Hill. Our voice is heard loud and clear throughout our nation and on all levels of government. The huge outcry against the planned Ground Zero Mosque and the fight against sharia law in state governments across the country are but two examples.

Today, as a strong and resolute counter measure to administration and media indecisiveness and kowtowing, we are on the front lines in our communities and our nation. We are summoned to wake up the apathetic and inspire the despaired, to silence the liars and educate the patriots. For if we fail to inform the ignorant, we will fail to save the informed.

One lesson I learned very early on in life: People treat you the way you allow them to treat you. Evil dwells when courageous people become bystanders. Society deteriorates when apathy replaces activism. Tyranny comes when leaders become mediocre and haters become organized.

For our nation, for our children, and to honor those who lost their lives ten years ago, we must rise in defense of our security, our liberty, our values – and win!

Brigitte Gabriel is Founder and President of ACT! For America. [Back to top]

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

The most troubling legacy of the past ten years with respect to the effort to secure America from the jihadists who struck us on 9/11 is the systemic failure to appreciate that we confront an enemy within.

I am not talking about individuals who have been dubbed “lone wolves” or “self-radicalized” individuals. Nor am I referring to the al Qaeda teams, Hezbollah cells, the Jamaat ul-Fuqra compounds and other would-be-violent terrorist groups believed (or, in some cases, known) to be at large here in the United States.

To be sure, those adherents to the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of shariah constitute a mortal threat. While assorted plots by such operatives have thankfully been detected and prevented over the past ten years, it is worrying that more has not been done comprehensively to put them out of business in this country.

Of even greater concern, however, is the fact that a decade after 9/11, our government remains fundamentally witless about the danger represented by so-called “non-violent” organizations that have exactly the same goals as these “terrorists” – namely, destroying Western civilization from within and establishing a global “caliphate” to rule according to shariah. Such groups and individuals are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian regime and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). They are more accurately described as pre-violent than non-violent since they believe the use of lethal force is entirely justified to accomplish their ends, provided the conditions are conducive to success.

Far from trying to roll up such operations, the U.S. government under successive administrations of both parties has treated them as leaders of, and virtually exclusive interlocutors with, American Muslims. This practice has: legitimated dangerous enemy operations, often insulating them from effective surveillance and countermeasures; afforded them extraordinary opportunities to achieve what the military would call “information dominance” – defining (literally in some cases) the terms of engagement, our understanding of the threat and circumscribing what we can do about it; and helped such groups dominate their co-religionists in this country, foreclosing a potentially vital source of real help in countering efforts to insinuate shariah into this country.

It is past time to recognize those running such influence operations for what they are: an enemy “inside the wire.” Accommodations – whether in the form of having senior officials, from the President on down, attend their events, meet with them, hire them or negotiate concessions with them – translate into lost ground in what the Brotherhood calls its “civilization jihad.” We can no more afford to allow such losses in this part of the “battlespace” than we can be indifferent to continuing vulnerabilities that the violent jihadists are anxious to exploit to murderous effect.

Once we recognize the true nature of the enemy within, we have a far better chance of doing what we must: Keep America free of the shariah agenda they seek by stealth to impose upon us.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy. [Back to top]

Rep. Paul Gosar

Since September 11, 2001, we have witnessed unmistakable and frightening growth in radical Islamism and anti-Semitism. The United States has the military capability to combat the militants and the terrorists responsible for radical and senseless violence, and our service members have proven highly effective at fighting that mission. But our long-term challenge lies in fighting the war of ideas. Our nation stands as a beacon of openness, tolerance, and heterogeneity. Americans cherish the values of hard work, independence and freedom. Over the past ten years, we have seen first-hand that these values are not universally shared. The radicals and the terrorists who seek to destroy us, Israel and other nations that promote religious tolerance, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, do not share our values. In fact, they despise these values.

I believe in the power of our ideas and our long held principles. I believe the United States of America serves as an important symbol for those across the world who dream of living in a free society. As long as America stands as the most exceptional nation on Earth, a nation that embodies liberty and a nation that shines the light on despots, tyrants and oppressors, we will be hated by those who run from the light and seek cover from the dark. We treat others the way we would like to be treated. Our nation was built on the respect of everyone’s opinions and religious preferences. Our enduring example of liberty will ultimately prevail. Until then, we must make sure our message, and our example, is seen and heard worldwide. We need not continue to apologize to any other country or any other ruler. Imperfect our country may be, wrong it is not. 9-11 demonstrated that the United States has a mission in this world, a mission to live the truths recognized by our Founding Fathers when they formed this nation.

Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S., is the U.S. House Representative for the First District of Arizona. [Back to top]

John Guandolo

The official public outreach campaign to the American people by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is “See Something, Say Something,” which encourages Americans to report any suspicious activity or behavior indicative of a potential act of terror or an ongoing threat to the United States. This seems to be a simple message which does a noble thing by encouraging Americans to participate in the security of their own country in a small but important way.

In that light, it is the intent of this article to give Americans some ideas of how to practically implement the DHS’s “See Something, Say Something” campaign – which has also been adopted by law enforcement organizations around the country. Let’s first take a look at the most significant threat which exists in the U.S. today – the penetration by the Muslim Brotherhood into our national security and foreign policy apparatus with the intent of destroying our ability to function against our enemies.

The Muslim Brotherhood Movement: Founded in Egypt in 1928 with the sole purpose of re-establishing the Global Islamic State (Caliphate), the Official Muslim Brotherhood (MB) By-Laws state the MB is “an International Muslim Body, which seeks to establish Allah’s law in the land.” The By-Laws further define the MB’s objectives: “Insist to liberate the Islamic nation from the yoke of foreign rule…the need to work on establishing the Islamic State…the sincere support for a global cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Shariah.” Most disturbing is this: “The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing the Islamic state.”

The MB Creed states the MB works to achieve the Islamic State under Shariah via Jihad: “Jihad is our way and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.” And finally, Shariah (Islamic Law) approved by the Muslim Brotherhood in the form of the Fiqh Council of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought – the most authoritative MB bodies officiating Islamic Law in North America – officially defines Jihad as “war against non-Muslims to establish the religion.” It should be noted that this definition of “jihad” in MB approved doctrine (The Reliance of the Traveller) can be found in authoritative Islamic Law (Shariah) published in English in Beltsville, Maryland, distributed to mosque book stores across America, and is sold on amazon.com. In other words, this doctrine is widely distributed within the Islamic community in America by the Muslim Brotherhood, and is taught in nearly all Islamic schools in America.

Strategic Muslim Brotherhood documents found in an FBI raid in 2004 in Annandale, Virginia at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader were entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history – The United States versus the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development or “HLF.” HLF was demonstrated to be a Hamas front organization funneling millions of dollars overseas to finance Jihad. At the time of its indictment, HLF was the largest Islamic charity in the U.S.

These MB documents, as well as financial records, recorded conversations, testimony, photographic evidence, and a massive amount of other evidence revealed the most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are controlled by this same Muslim Brotherhood who defines their goal in America as a “Civilization Jihad.” The Muslim Brotherhood controlled groups include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – a Hamas front organization, and many others. In fact, hundreds of financial documents reveal that ISNA and NAIT directly funded Hamas over a period of years. For those unaware, Hamas is a designated Terrorist Organization by the U.S. government.

With that in mind, I would like to go back to the DHS Campaign – “See Something, Say Something.” As a citizen, here is my input for anyone at DHS interested in pursuing known threats to America:

I see Hamas leader Nihad Awad (Senior CAIR official) walking down C Street near the U.S. Capitol
I see the President of the Islamic Society of North America, Mohamed Majid, at his Islamic center in Sterling, Virginia – the All Dulles Area Mosque Society (ADAMS)
Now I see Mohamed Majid walking around federal buildings in Washington, DC
I see Mohamed Elibiary (Terrorist/Hamas supporter) walking around outside DHS Headquarters
I see Muslim Brother Yahya Hendi (Fiqh Council of North America) walking around the Georgetown University campus
Now I see Hendi at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center
I see senior Muslim Brotherhood leader Sayyid Syeed (ISNA Director) near the front doors of the State Department
Now I see Syeed and Mohammed Elsanousi (ISNA Director) on Capitol Hill
I see leaders of the Muslim Student Associations on nearly every major college campus in America
I see Hani Sakr (Senior Muslim Brother leader as detailed in HLF evidence) in Columbus, OH
I see Muzammil Siddiqi (ISNA/FCNA) wandering around near the White House
I see Ihsan Bagby (ISNA/CAIR etc) wandering around the University of Kentucky campus
I see Hamas leader Muneer Awad (CAIR-OK) wandering around Oklahoma…

I keep seeing some things and saying some things. Why isn’t anyone doing anything?

John Guandolo is the Vice President for Strategic Planning for the Strategic Engagement Group (SEG). He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, served as an Officer in the United States Marine Corps, and was a Special Agent in the Washington office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is an author of Shariah: The Threat to America. [Back to top]

Peter Huessy

A decade after 9/11 it is hoped America’s security establishment better understands what threats we face of which the attacks of 9/11 were one facet. The answer to that question remains incomplete. After the end of the Cold War we were attacked repeatedly by what were termed terrorists. But we never explicitly connected these attacks to two broader elements, both of which pose a mortal threat to our country and its constitution. The first was the sponsorship of terror as a tactic of a hybrid warfare being waged by states such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Libya against the United States and its allies. Remember, Libya supplied the majority of the terrorists attacking Iraq traveling the rat lines through Syria. The second was the extent to which these states used what I term “jihadis” to do their dirty work and infiltrated such groups or created them for their own murderous purposes (Hezbollah, the Taliban and Hamas, for example).

Taking down the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq appeared to recognize the role of states in the threat we face but we never carefully connected the two regimes to the terrorism we faced. Yes, the Taliban gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda and yes Saddam gave support and funding to terrorists. But both efforts soon were transformed into nation-building under the idea that governments at least a modest stone’s throw from some elements of “democracy” might be less hospitable to supporting, training and financing terrorists, especially if these same countries were to develop biological and nuclear weapons with which to surreptitiously attack the United States and its allies.

So America remains confused—why are we in Iraq if Al Qaeda primarily remains in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere? And this is where things got complicated, unnecessarily. The drive-by media had a template or narrative of the origins of the terror attacks against us especially on 9/11. Al Qaeda, we were told endlessly, had grievances against us especially the lack of a Palestinian state.

But 9/11 was an attack not of Al Qaeda operatives, anymore than mob hits are solely the work of “button men”. The earlier World Trade Center attack in 1993 was not an Al Qaeda operation but one connected to Iraq. Saddam wrote checks of $300,000 to Al Qaeda’s number two leader. Also, Iran helped the 9/11 operatives travel unnoticed to and from their training centers, a fact now confirmed by a US court.

And so successive president’s devoted enormous time to the “peace process” which inexplicitly was to include Syria, which is a card-carrying member of the axis of terror that is at war with us! But the terror states do not want peace with us or two states living together—a Palestinian state and the state of Israel. They want to bring us down.

And added to this poisonous brew are the Muslim clerics and Imams and self-appointed leaders who seek to spread the cults of Wahhabism and Khomeinism along with their totalitarian culture we call “sharia”. So we face not only hybrid warfare—those using our vulnerabilities against us. We face a hybrid enemy—states and terror groups. They appear to attack randomly; they claim to be righteous; they claim to represent all Muslims; or they claim a right to hegemonic empire. But their murderous ways are no different than the murderous ways of the original state sponsor of terrorism the Soviet Union. It is also not coincidence that Soviet client states included Syria, Libya and Iraq! And now Iran and Syria, among others.

The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan can end up of benefit to this country and her allies. The Arab Spring, having grown out of a vegetable cart owner burning himself alive, was not aimed at expanding some Muslim empire over the earth or even the Middle East. It was aimed at the brutal regimes—many of them state sponsors of terrorism—that deny opportunity and liberty to hundreds of millions of people. Whether the future expands liberty or extends the totalitarian darkness of the mullahs in Iran and the clerics in Afghanistan is the great challenge of this new century.

Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, founded in 1981.

Raymond Ibrahim

Are we safer? In order to decide whether we are safer today, a decade after the events of 9/11, we must first establish who “we” are.

If “we” means the immediate us, you and me, this particular generation, then the situation is slightly improved: Osama bin Laden, who came to personify al-Qaeda, is dead, as are other reportedly high level terrorists. According to White House counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, al-Qaeda is “On a steady slide. On the ropes. Taking shots to the body and head.”

Conversely, if “we” means Western civilization, including future generations, then the situation is dire, gone from bad to worse. The fact is, from a macro perspective, even if al-Qaeda were totally eradicated tomorrow, the threat to the West would hardly recede, for al-Qaeda was never the source of the threat, but simply one of its multitudinous manifestations (other threats include the stealth jihad to overthrow Western civilization from within).

Even the Obama administration is inadvertently beginning to acknowledge the existential nature of the conflict (though of course without articulating it as such): it recently declared that lone wolf terrorists-jihadists who have no connection to al-Qaeda other than that they share the same Islamist-inspired worldview, people like the Fort Hood jihadist, the Christmas Day Bomber, the Shoe Bomber, ad infinitum-are a greater threat than al-Qaeda. That is, jihad metastasized.

To better appreciate the “big picture,” consider how at the turn of the 20th Century, the Islamic world was rushing to emulate the victorious and confident West-best exemplified by the Ottoman empire itself, the preserver and enforcer of Islam, rejecting its Muslim past and trying to modernize. Today, 100 years later, the Muslim world has largely rejected secularism and is reclaiming its Islamic-including jihadist-heritage, lashing out in a manifold of ways.

Likewise, consider how many Islamist leaders, organizations, and terrorists have come and gone in the 20th Century alone-many killed like bin Laden-only for Islam to grow more hostile towards the non-Muslim West than at any time in the modern era.

It is in this context that the overall significance of eliminating this or that terrorist or organization must be understood.

In short, we need to get beyond obsessing over names and faces-al-Qaeda and bin Laden, for example-and begin focusing on the ideas and motivations that create them-that is, if “we” encompasses more than this generation.

Raymond Ibrahim, an Islam-specialist and author of The Al Qaeda Reader, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. [Back to top]

Rep. Peter T. King

On September 11, 2001, when nearly 3,000 innocent victims were murdered by al-Qaeda, our Nation came face-to-face with a threat that many did not realize was imminent. In the ten years that have passed, I have been dedicated to securing our homeland from terrorists. Today, our homeland security is improved, we are safer, and it would be much more difficult for al-Qaeda or its affiliates to orchestrate another attack of the same scale in the same manner.

We are safer, in part, because law enforcement and our Intelligence Community are better able to share vital information to combat terrorism and protect the homeland, aided by the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and other post-9/11 government reorganization efforts.

Osama bin Laden is dead, but that certainly does not mean that the threat from al-Qaeda, its affiliates, or its adherents is dead. In fact, in many ways the threat has evolved.

Islamic terrorist organizations have increasingly turned to recruiting and radicalizing from within the Muslim American Community – focusing on U.S. citizens and those who are in this country legally. In just the last two years or so, the trend has manifested itself at Fort Hood, Times Square, a Little Rock military recruiting center, and the New York City subway system – all targets of successful, failed, or planned attacks by U.S. citizens or legal residents who trained with, had contact with, or were inspired by al-Qaeda or affiliated leaders.

In March, I convened a series of hearings to examine this radicalization threat, which the Obama Administration agrees is a problem (Attorney General Eric Holder said this threat is what keeps him awake at night). Despite enduring constant criticism from liberals in Washington and in the media, I will continue with the hearings.

Rep. King is the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security and a Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. [Back to top]

Andrea Lafferty

There is nothing that strikes deeper at the heart of the American experiment than a test of our liberties — the right to free speech, and the right of religious freedom. It was because of these liberties that Islamist terror struck on September 11^th, 2011, costing thousands of lives and bringing the realities of the world a bit closer to home.

Ten years later, the Islamist threat remains.

Yet the tactics have changed. Rather than planes, Islamists use mosques as nerve centers for resistance. Rather than terrorists, Islamists use imams and lawyers to drive the point home. Rather than bombs, Islamists use deceit and deception to say one thing while the realities on the ground are far different.

Take for instance Imam Feisal Rauf, the presumed leader of the Islamist faction in the United States. At an March 2011 panel at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. it was Rauf who opened up a direct attack on America’s foundational constitutional protections and rights. Rather than allowing Islam to be engaged in the public square critically, Rauf considers any criticism of Islam as “libel” — a hate crime.

When I watched this in the audience, I sat there outraged. I could see the writing on the wall.

Now we know the brazen truth. Rauf opened the Islamist playbook and removed any doubts about the true nature of the Islamist agenda. In short, while keeping up an ecumenical front, Rauf and other Islamists intend to openly use American laws to crush dissent, demanding our laws silence any criticism, concerns, or questions about the Islamist threat.

The list doesn’t stop there. The so-called Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero? Keep in mind that the Moors, when they conquered Cordoba in the 7th century, converted the Christian cathedral into an Islamic “victory” mosque. For Islamists to spike the football in New York City at Ground Zero with a victory mosque of their own is outrageous enough.

But to be condemned as inciting “hate crimes” by questioning the prudence of such a move? Westerners may consider this to be offensive. Islamists have another term for such a struggle: jihad.

This jihad is being waged on multiple fronts, whether it is in chicken processing plants in Tennessee or in “no go” zones in Dearborn, Michigan. This jihad is cultural, legal, spiritual, and as we saw 10 years ago on September 11, 2001 — manifests itself in violence.

America is not the first nation to be confronted with the Islamist threat. Ironically, it was Thomas Jefferson who inaugurated the first pre-emptive war against Islamist terror, then in the form of the Barbary Pirates. “Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute” was our battle cry then. With a firm reliance upon God, we should be willing to meet the forces of Islamist terror fearlessly, and without shame.

Andrea Lafferty is the director of the Traditional Values Coalition. [Back to top]

Frances C. Lane

Are We Safe Yet? In terms of the clear danger presented on September 11, 2001, yes, we are safer. The multiple attacks orchestrated by Al Qaeda jolted America out of its complacency and ended any illusion of a Cold War “peace dividend”. Just being the sole remaining superpower would not ensure that the “Pax America” would continue unchallenged into the twenty first century.

The Bush administration countered with a War on Terror with three decisive components. First, the conflict was taken outside the continental United States. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq sought to root out the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and weapons of mass destruction that could be used for subsequent attacks. This massive investiture of time, money and manpower kept the pressure on the terrorists and reduced their international effectiveness. Second, a massive effort was made to shore up homeland security– from protecting ports and airports to improving intelligence collection and sharing. To date, we have succeeded in thwarting 9/11 “copy cat” attempts. Third, a concerted effort was made to build and deploy a missile defense system. Over the past decade great strides were made in the sea based component and the selection of deployable options for the rest of the architecture. What began in the Bush administration continued. Paul Gigot in reviewing Dick Cheney’s memoir, In My Time, noted: “In nearly every particular, Barack Obama has either embraced or been forced to accept the national security policies devised by the Bush administration.” (The Wall Street Journal, 3- 4 Sept 2011).

To remain safe, we must maintain our vigilance and constantly calibrate our national security apparatus to address persisting and emerging threats in what remains a dangerous world. We all know that our nation is carrying too much debt. But we need to prune prudently– cutting unnecessary expenditures without jeopardizing the constitutional mission of “providing for the common defense”.

A quick tour d’horizon reminds us that the proliferation of missile and weapons of mass destruction technology is still a global threat. While the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) has succeeded in interdicting the transit of some of the components of weapons of mass destruction, there is much more to be done. Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is yet to become a reality. Iran, which continues to develop both its missile and nuclear programs, announced in 2010 that it had enhanced its uranium enrichment technique to fifteen percent. (Christopher Ford, “From Rags to Enriches: Lasers and Uranium Production”, New Paradigms Forum, August 24, 2011)

The regional picture is just as challenging. China made quantum leaps in acquiring US technology and in modernizing its armed forces over the past decade. Recently, General Electric announced intentions to share advanced avionics with a Chinese firm to develop a commercial aircraft destined to rival that of Boeing and Europe’s Airbus. (Howard Schneider,”GE ‘all in’ on plane deal with China,” The Washington Post, 23 August 2011.) The increasing sophistication of the People’s Liberation Army forces is well documented in the Pentagon Report released last month. In the Middle East unrest, tribal tensions and Islamic militancy pose a threat to nascent democracies. Recently, US intelligence discovered a plot by jihadists to subvert the post Gadhafi government in Libya. (Bill Gertz, “Jihadists plot to take over Libya”, The Washington Times, 5 September 2001). The Europeans continue to grapple with stagnating economies and a waning interest and capability to be a United States defense partner.

It is no small order to address these threats and challenges while ensuring that the United States is a stable “rule of law” nation intent on attracting, not losing, global business. To the extent we succeed, we will be safer.

Frances Caroline Lane is national security analyst. [Back to top]

Dr. J.P. London

The world is still a dangerous place. The September 11th attacks erased the long-standing belief that the U.S. homeland was impervious to attack and gave Americans the worst kind of introduction to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. That day also ushered in a new era for American national security; one defined by asymmetric threats. The U.S. now had to prepare against a broad and unpredictable spectrum of risks from both state and non-state actors whose abilities and goals differed significantly. While the U.S. has stepped up to the challenge of protecting itself in this new environment over the past decade, we cannot give in to a false sense of security again.

The capture and killing of many of Al Qaeda’s leadership, highlighted by Osama bin Laden’s demise this May, is certainly not the end of terrorism. Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist terrorist groups still operate on a regional level. The threat to Americans by violent, radicalized individuals, exemplified by the Ft. Hood shootings in 2009 and the Times Square bomber in 2010, also cannot be ignored.

The revolutions of the Arab Spring will also take many seasons to take hold. The grass-roots movements behind the protests will struggle to institutionalize change. They are challenged by a lack of experience with democracy, such as a functioning judiciary, free press, and institutional accountability. Another question is how secular and moderate Muslim groups will deal with radical Islamic elements in their countries. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood formed the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt in June and is part of the current coalition government. Despite the changes, there is no guarantee of even Arab-style democracies.

Uncertainty underlies another national priority: cyber security. Cyber attacks are anonymous and unpredictable – and growing. There were nearly 42,000 cyber attacks against federal government networks in 2010, 40 percent more than 2009. About 85 percent of U.S. companies have experienced one or more malicious attacks, potentially costing larger organizations millions of dollars. These attacks target classified information, corporate intellectual property, and critical infrastructure, such as power grids, transportation, and financial networks. While Russia and Israel are considered to be the larger troublemakers in cyberspace, China has the fastest-growing and most active cyber attack program of all nations. Despite this, there is little definition of the range of cyber threats, the authorities to counter them, and the international rules of cyber engagement.

Ten years after 9/11, the outlook for U.S. national and globally security is cautiously optimistic. Al Qaeda may be down, but it is far from out. And the roots of Arab democracies are still trying to take hold. The same advancements in technology that bring the world together also threaten to tear it apart.

Today’s asymmetric threat environment is characterized by many new challenges. However, one mission has always been the same – to keep America safe.

Dr. J. P. London is Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board, CACI International Inc. [Back to top]

James ‘Ace’ Lyons

Reflections on 9/11 and whether we are safer now requires a review of the circumstances that led up to 9/11. The fundamental reason which created the circumstances leading up to 9/11 was our “failure to act when challenged.”

The first challenge occurred when the Carter Administration failed to take effective action when the Ayatollah Khomeini regime captured our Embassy in Tehran in November 1979. At that time, I was the Director, Political-Military Affairs for the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and proposed to the acting Chairman of the JCS that we mount an operation to capture Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export depot. It was basically undefended and would have been a prime target for our U.S. Navy Seals and Special forces.

Capturing Kharg Island would have put the U.S. in a commanding position on demanding the immediate release of our diplomats and the return of our Embassy. It would have sent a powerful signal to the fledgling Khomeini theocracy in their early fragile days that they must conform to international norms or suffer severe consequences. Regretfully, President Carter dismissed that option out of hand. Instead, the Administration displayed a paralysis and inability to act. The failed rescue attempt in April 1980 only compounded the problem and created an image of the United States as a “paper tiger.”

This inability to respond only unleashed a series of kidnappings and other terrorists acts sponsored by the Khomeini regime, culminating in the bombing of our Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in April 1983, followed by the U.S. Marine Barracks bombing on October 23, 1983, killing 241 of our finest military personnel. We had positive proof the orders for the bombing came from Tehran. The U.S. Navy working with the CIA, had its planes loaded and were ready to totally eliminate the Iranian sponsored terrorist group, the Islamic Amal forerunner to Hezbollah, who were holed up in the Lebanese Army barracks above Balbek. They had taken over these barracks on September 16^th, 1983 with the help of the IRGC. Unfortunately, it was the Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger who prevented our retaliating strike from occurring.

Again the U.S. seemed paralyzed by a terrorist act. Our only response was to move the Marines offshore. Such an inability to act became Osama bin Laden’s rallying call “when Americans suffer casualties, they will cut and run” – and the perception is that’s what we did! During both the Carter and Reagan Administrations, had we taken the military actions which both those terrorists’ acts called for, we could have changed the course of history. Instead, we unleashed a series of bolder terrorist actions aided and abetted by Iran, culminating in their support for the 9/11 hijackers.

Today, we face a more ominous threat of a nuclear weapon equipped Iran. With Iran’s acts of aggression against the United States for over 30 years, we certainly can make the case for neutralizing their nuclear weapon infrastructure, but once again when challenged, we have failed to act. Iran with its apocalyptic mindset does not make me feel any safer today on the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.) is former Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet. [Back to top]

Ryan Mauro

The war on radical Islam cannot be reduced to a war on Al-Qaeda. The U.S. has indeed done tremendous damage to Al-Qaeda’s operational capabilities, and Al-Qaeda’s own lack of strategic thinking and missteps have helped us accomplish that. We are safer from Al-Qaeda, but that does not mean we are safer from radical Islam. Across the Middle East, the Islamists have the momentum, carefully exploiting the gains by genuine reformers. It is an exciting time to be an Islamist.

The Muslim Brotherhood has never before stood on the precipice of making such tremendous gains. They have been helped by the West’s eagerness to embrace moderate Muslim groups, reaching out to every group condemning 9/11. Compared to Al-Qaeda, most Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood, appear moderate but their goals are the same. The Brotherhood and similar Islamists are simply more patient and intelligent and therefore, more threatening.

There are several Islamist campaigns that are succeeding in their incremental, long-term approach towards winning global Sharia-based governance. There is a quiet effort to build Muslim enclaves throughout the West, including in the U.S. This campaign is helped by the lack of assimilation by Muslim immigrants in Europe, leading to the creation of what has been dubbed by Dr. Daniel Pipes, “No Go Zones.”

The most successful group in building these enclaves in the U.S. is Muslims of the Americas, which is tied to the Pakistan-based terrorist group, Jamaat ul-Fuqra. The group boasts of having 22 “villages” around the country and some are dozens of acres large. The Christian Action Network’s 2009 film, “Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Camps Around U.S.” exposed the group and how these “villages” are used to spread radical Islam and even provide guerilla warfare training. After the film’s release, we received a secret MOA videotape showing such training at the group’s headquarters in Hancock, New York, called “Islamberg.”

The MOA has an array of front groups, including the United Muslim Christian Forum. They are trying to reach out to gullible Christians, elected officials, and even law enforcement personnel to show how “moderate” they are. The mayors of Owego and Binghamton, New York have praised the group, apparently unaware of its extremist beliefs and ties.

This is an example of how the Islamists are taking advantage of the West’s short attention span. They know how far to push without awakening the public to what’s happening. The failure (thus far) to stop the Ground Zero Mosque is discouraging, but the anger over the project is encouraging. It shows that the country is still capable of taking a stand, but it is not often that the Islamists do something so blatantly offensive and high-profile as the Ground Zero Mosque.

Those that are determined to fight the spread of radical Islam must reach out to communities to educate them about the ideology, instead of just Al-Qaeda. The synagogues and churches need to be mobilized. Muslims who truly stand up against radical Islam must be welcomed and upheld. After 9/11, almost every American wanted to do something but was never told what to do. This isn’t just the government’s fight. This is our fight; all of us.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and national security analyst at Christian Action Network. [Back to top]

Matt Mayer

Before the September 11, 2001, attack by al Qaeda, outside of New York City and Los Angeles, the vast enterprise of federal, state, and local entities that comprise our domestic security paid no meaningful attention to the threat of terrorists. Despite ten years of bombings across the globe beginning in 1991, including the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, America really was a sleeping giant. Our national slumber ended ten years ago.

Just the fact that most Americans now readily acknowledge that terrorists want to attack us domestically and, even if grudgingly, accept the vast majority of measures erected after September 11 makes us safer. At times, those measures did in fact work to keep us safe. Other times, pure luck or incompetency kept us free from catastrophic harm.

So, we should rightly celebrate the last ten years and the efforts of thousands of men and women who work tirelessly to keep us safe. That said, the financial cost to put in place all of the measures-from a new federal department to wars overseas to tens of billions of dollars in grants to states and localities-has been too high. The damage done to our Nation’s federalism principle also suffered these last ten years.

We could have achieved the same level of security and a much lower cost financially and constitutionally.

As we point out in our new Heritage Foundation report, “Homeland Security 4.0: Overcoming Centralization, Complacency, and Politics,” too often the response to September 11 involved federalizing functions that had historically and constitutionally rested with states and localities and ignoring the vastly greater experience and resources residing in our states. Despite decades of community policing work, the federal government came to see local law enforcement as a mere data collector and not the robust tip of the spear it actually is.

Similarly, as naïve as it may sound, politics inserted itself in too many places after September 11. Specifically, homeland security grant programs intended to build critical capabilities in high risk places became political pork barrel programs where everybody lined up at the trough. Likewise, some have tried to use cargo security to increase longshoreman union membership no matter the harm to the economy of slowing down supply chains. And, of course, there is our airport passenger screening process that lacks common sense and adheres too much to political correctness.

We can and must do better, especially given the fiscal crises at all levels of government. Because our enemies must only succeed once to harm us, our homeland security enterprise must not rely upon luck and incompetency to remain safe. It is time we renewed our belief in federalism and exercised some fiscal restraint. Our safety is best secured outside of Washington, D.C.

Matt Mayer, a former senior official at DHS, is a Visiting Fellow with The Heritage Foundation and President of The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, as well as the author of “Homeland Security and Federalism: Protecting America Outside the Beltway.” [Back to top]

Faith J. H. McDonnell

When the foundations are shaken, what can the righteous do? Psalm 11: 3

Perhaps I don’t have a right to feel as devastated as I do by 9/11. Some would say that it did not affect me “personally,” as I lost no family members. But everything changed on that cruel, sunshine-filled morning and can never be the same again. We not only lost the people and all the potential contained within each one killed in the jihadist attacks, we lost the innocence of a 9/10 world, the privilege of living in a country where thousands of our best and brightest young men and women did not have to offer their lives in military service, and the illusion that we live in safety.

Yet even with that illusion shattered, and that awareness supposedly being used to protect us from further attacks, we are not safer on this tenth anniversary of 9/11 than we were in those halcyon 9/10 days. With all the military battles we have won, we seem to continue losing what Walid Phares calls “the war of ideas.” A critical component of that loss that I see in my work as an activist for victims of religious persecution around the world is our inability to connect the dots between events.

I always believed Christian and Jewish communities would stand against Islamic radicalization in America. Having seen the persecution and outright slaughter of Christians and Jews in the Islamic world, as well as the imposition of Shariah in countries that formerly had secular governments, I thought they would understand that Islamic supremacists have the same agenda for the United States. But it seems not only do some Christian and Jewish leaders scoff at this possibility, they actively undermine those who offer such warnings. They fulfill the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood: “destroying the Western civilization from within” – “sabotaging its miserable house by their hands.”

People are outraged by the slavery and murder of black Africans in Sudan. They are horrified by the murder of hundreds of innocent little children in Jos, Nigeria. They are shocked by the assassination of a great man like Shahbaz Bhatti in Pakistan. And they are sickened by the slaughter of the Fogel family in Israel. But to borrow from Charles Krauthammer’s statement about President Obama’s reaction to the jihad murder of two American soldiers in Germany, they treat these incidents like a “bus accident” – tragic, but random, unconnected with everything else that is going on in the world. They refuse to see reality, or as Melanie Phillips suggests, they treat factual reality as an option that they can discard in favor of a more acceptable scenario. Incident after incident proves that “by their fruit you shall know them.” Will the factual evidence ever be piled so high that these deniers and appeasers cannot possibly refuse to connect the dots? We will not be safe until that happens.

Faith J. H. McDonnell is the director of the Religious Liberty Program and Church Alliance for a New Sudan as well as the Institute on Religion and Democracy. [Back to top]

Jon Perdue

Latin America since 9/11: Are we safer after a decade of ‘benign neglect’? The “corset effect” is the term used to describe the displacement of cocaine production and narcotrafficking routes that occurs after an increase in interdiction efforts in a particular area, as illustrated by the shift in power from the Colombian cartels of prior decades to the Mexican cartels today.

Similarly, when a proactive strategy is used against terrorists groups, the survivors tend to move to new areas devoid of the rule of law, where ideological kinship and freedom of movement allow their continued plotting against their perceived enemies. And while narcotics trafficking is buoyed by the ineluctable laws of supply and demand, international terrorism survives only on the demand from despotic regimes to use it as an adjunct of political power, and as an insurance policy against regime change. After a decade focusing on Iraq and Afghanistan, the Hindu Kush may no longer be the safest redoubt for scheming jihadis, but the nascent left-wing regimes in Latin America have arisen as ready replacements.

Shortly after the attacks of September 11th, the Organization of American States (OAS) issued a declaration that promised defiantly that, “Individually and collectively, we will deny terrorist groups the capacity to operate in this Hemisphere. This American family stands united.” But that sentiment of solidarity proved to be short-lived.

At that time, Hugo Chavez had already made state visits to embrace Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi and Mohammed Khatami, and was already welcoming terrorist operatives into Venezuela from the Middle East. Still, two U.S. administrations, Republican and Democrat, have treated the region with so-called “benign neglect,” while Chavez has used state oil money to help elect other terror-supporting allies in neighboring countries.

One of those allies, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, was the last to draw the U.S. into the region in a kinetic operation in the 1980s. But what is often forgotten is Ortega’s involvement in the precursor to 9-11, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

Nicaragua then, like Venezuela today, had become a mecca for international terrorists. The Economist magazine reported in June of 1998 on the menagerie of terrorists that had gathered in Managua under the aegis of the first Ortega administration: “Beside sundry Latin Americans, they include left-overs of Germany’s Baader-Meinhof gang, Italy’s Red Brigades, Basque separatists, Islamic fundamentalists, Palestinian extremists and others. They have been able to stay because the Sandinistas, in their last weeks of power, gave them Nicaraguan passports.”

Those Nicaraguan passports showed up in the apartment of the Islamist terrorists that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. But it was not until a month after September 11, 2001 that the U.S. would finally confront the Nicaraguan foreign minister, and a day later a State Department official would single out three members of Ortega’s FSLN party for harboring terrorists in Managua.

Since then, U.S. engagement in the region has continued to wane, even as country after country has fallen to far-left regimes whose administrations are now manned by ex-terrorists and anti-American radicals that fully subscribe to their cause.

Almost monthly now a new report comes out warning of Iranian Quds Force or ETA terrorists operating in Latin America, yet we remain unable to even muster the votes to pass a trade agreement with Colombia, our strongest anti-terror ally in the region. And the OAS, so supportive a decade hence while the rubble was still smoldering at Ground Zero, now serves as a U.S.-funded Interests Section for the regimes that call 9-11 our comeuppance.

While one administration could have been said to be “distracted” by two wars and the building of a counter-terror infrastructure, the current and the next administration would be wise to watch our flank. While the passage of time often brings improved knowledge of the terrorist threat and better tools to defeat it, unfortunately, it also tends to dull our resolve.

Jon Perdue is Director of Latin American Programs at the Fund for American Studies. [Back to top]

Daniel Pipes

Three weeks after 9/11, I wrote an article titled “Why This American Feels Safer” in which I noted that, unlike the 2/3s of my fellow countrymen who felt “less safe” than before the atrocities, I felt more secure. Twenty-two years after radical Islam started making war on the United States (counting from the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979), Americans finally took this threat seriously. “The newfound alarm is healthy, the sense of solidarity heartening, the resolve is encouraging.”

At the same time, I expressed a “worry about U.S. constancy and purpose,” fearing that the “United We Stand” spirit and resolve would dissipate over time. Has it, in fact, withered?

Trends over the past ten years are so complex and contradictory that I could argue both sides of the answer. If vigilance has prevented a repetition of 9/11, counterterrorism has reached the point that a White House policy document dares not even refer to terrorism in the title.

That said, overall, I think we are safer, and for one main reason: However much politicians, journalists, and academics obscure the nature of the threat and the proper response to it, 9/11 began a discussion about Islam and Islamism that has not stopped. As the years go by and its quality improves, I am increasingly heartened.

Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. [Back to top]

Ken Timmerman

Even as you read this, armed agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran are plotting to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Using the Qods Force, the overseas expeditionary unit of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is funneling arms, money, materiel and kill orders to his thugs. In Iraq, they are primarily Shias, who these days use monikers such as the Promised Day Brigade, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Hezbollah; in Afghanistan, they are the Taliban and its ally, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Wahhabi extremist who received hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. weaponry from our Pakistani “allies” during the 1980s fight to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. Thankfully, the Treasury Department (not the CIA or the Pentagon) has pointed out these linkages between Iran and its Sunni proxies in a series of press releases and terrorism designation orders over the past few years.

That Iran should be arming and aiding Shiite and Sunni groups alike may come as a surprise to the grey beards at the CIA, who for decades have persisted in dividing the terror masters along sectarian lines. As Jim Woolsey told me when I was writing Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, “the conventional wisdom is idiotic.” The intelligence community analysts who argued that Sunnis and Shias wouldn’t cooperate in killing Americans and attacking Israel reminded him of the experts in the 1930s who said the Communists and the Fascists would never work together. “Then, whoops, here comes the Hitler-Stalin pact. Intellectuals get involved in policy analysis and they think the intellectual roots of a movement are more important than the fact that they are totalitarians. This is extremely dangerous,” Woolsey said.

Despite the sacrifice and brilliant performance of our military, we are on the verge of losing both Iraq and Afghanistan to the Islamic Republic of Iran; and yet, we persist in pretending Iran is not at war with us. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta appears to have gotten the surprise of his life during his inaugural visit to Iraq as Defense Secretary in July, where he declared that, by God, Iranian agents were killing Americans and we were going to defend ourselves! Apparently, someone at the CIA had forgotten to draft the memo informing him that this has been going on since coalition forces first entered Iraq in March 2003.

Here at home, the apologists for the Islamic Republic, such as Trita Parsi and his mis-named National Iranian-American Council, would have us believe that we can reach an accommodation with the terror masters in Tehran. Essentially, what Parsi and his ilk are suggesting amounts to unilateral surrender: acknowledge that we have been bested by the ayatollahs and allow them to dictate the terms of our submission. In exchange, they might release the U.S. hostages they regularly take (former FBI agent Robert Levinson, the two hikers” captured along the Iraqi border, various Iranian-Americans “arrested” while visiting family) and stop killing our troops. Maybe.

Instead, we should be hitting the Iranian regime where they fear it the most: in their freedom deficit, by massively aiding the secular pro-freedom movement inside Iran. A good first step would be to take the Free Life Party of Kurdistan, PJAK, off the Treasury Department’s list of Specially-Designated Nationals, where they never belonged in the first place.

Ken Timmerman is President and CEO of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran. [Back to top]

Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell

“Wake up. Look at the television. Our country is under attack.”

That’s how I dragged our kids out of bed – here in the Alaska time zone – the morning of September 11. We held vigil throughout much of the day, prayed, cried, and found joy in the fact that some we had feared dead turned up alive. My wife had worked in the area of the World Trade Center before she moved to Alaska in 1990, and her sister’s husband was there. It turns out his crew of electricians had just left the roof of one of the towers and he was down on the street watching the airplanes hit.

We heard later that friends who refused to believe the all-clear signal are alive today because they kept trudging down the stairs. It was another few days before we knew the fate of a 90-year-old friend, who lived in an apartment so close that we had always met in the Twin Towers for breakfast. (He’d been packed off to a hospital, disoriented but fine.)

We were so far, and so close. Other families we know did not have happy endings that day. In the end, like everyone else, we were shocked, sad, and outraged. Our world was so small. The victims were so innocent. Mass murder and genocide were scourges we’d all hoped mankind would leave behind in this new millennium.

Since 9/11, I have said my prayers and paid my respects at two of the three ground zeroes. I have seen my friends and countrymen go off to war, and seen many – too many – return in wooden boxes. As a nation, we look for a “new normal” – one where our liberty and basic security is maintained. As always, these goals conflict.

For me, 9/11 has two lessons:

First of all, if we leave ourselves vulnerable, evil people will exploit our vulnerabilities. America was warned about the threat of hijacked aircraft – in government assessments and even in a Tom Clancy novel. We ignored them. Are we ignoring other threats based on wishful thinking? Missile attack from aggressors – whether state-actors or terrorist networks? Electromagnetic Pulse – where one well-placed detonation can disable our power and electronics? (We’ve been warned about that by a Congressional Commission and a far-from-fanciful novel, too: William Forstchen’s One Second After.)

Secondly, freedom must be constantly defended. The forces behind the 9/11 attacks abhor freedom, abhor democracy, abhor women’s rights, abhor education. It is a force which preys upon fear and ignorance. Our own response – which appropriately checks our vulnerabilities – must never check back our freedom.

Mead Treadwell serves as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska. [Back to top]

Tom Trento

A decade ago, I had no reason to believe that today I would be actively involved in fighting against an anti-Western Islamic ideology within cities and towns across America. It is now axiomatic, Americans are engaged in a “hot” war in several global theatres and we are confronting an equally dangerous cultural jihad within our courts, schools, media, universities, indeed in every aspect of American life.

Has this asymmetric civilian effort helped make the United States safer from Muslim terrorists or is it simply an illustration of well-intended people, tilting at windmills? In light of systemic failures of our Federal government, a less-safe, post 9/11 America is a sad fact. In order to correct this dangerous state of affairs and help decrease the Islamic threat condition, the creative use of direct citizen involvement will be required on a regular basis.

Though not for everyone, but simply as an illustration, I work with a team of people who believe it is important to enter the domain of the jihadist and expose the Imams, leaders and their messages through lawful and intelligent methodologies. My purpose in these few words is not to analyze one of our tactical operations but to point to the quality and character of the “new citizen,” who understands that they too must protect America from Islamic terrorism, in what will be a very long battle. Recently, our team set out for a well-known Islamic Center in a major US city.

As we neared the target, I stopped to drop off my three passengers, a former Catholic nun, a network engineer who wanted more meaning in his life and a retired CIA operations officer. The plan was simple. Individually enter the Islamic Mosque at different times and set up in prearranged positions with prepared questions and video cameras rolling. Our objective was clear cut, gather intelligence and expose terrorists in our continuing effort to make America safer from evil Muslim jihadists.

Comparatively, on this tenth anniversary of our contemporary “day of infamy,” we are actually less safe than we were on September 10, 2001 because those who are required to clearly identify and name the enemy have failed miserably, thus putting our nation at an unnecessary threat level.

Notwithstanding this unimaginable tragedy of our federal government, I have great hope that America will be made safer because of people like my three colleagues and their courage and determination to be the civilian “tip of the spear,” in this civilizational jihad. My friends understand the immediate necessity of protecting the USA from all enemies, even those hiding under the guise of a religion, exploiting western attributes of free speech while planning death, destruction and Islamic revolution.

Interestingly, my circle of friends has transitioned over these past ten years as have my interests in life and my focus on pragmatic and existential issues that ultimately matter. I now spend countless hours with committed patriotic friends, people who will shout, “I will go,” when called upon for action. As a result of this sacrificial attitude my disgust for our federal failures turns to hope and confidence, that once again, free people, standing on bedrock principles, empowered by unity of purpose, indeed will ensure that America is victorious over yet another campaign by the enemy against that which is right and just and true.

Victory is not obtained cheaply therefore a successful formula for winning this “war on terror,” requires both a top and bottom component working in a unified but separate manner, all with the same operational objective in view. At the top, our federal officials must repudiate the choke-hold of political sensitivities and understand that certain moments in history require putting the feelings of the few behind the security of the many.

In addition, at the bottom, in the street, from the historic depository of American fortitude, I implore good Americans of all stripes to come out of your slumber; plumbers, teachers, veterans, tired, old, young, e pluribus unum, and take to this epic fight. Whatever you have or have left, we can use it, we need it, America needs it, in fact your country needs you right now, right here, sign up, today…before it’s too late. We do not have another ten years to figure out how to get this right.

Oh, by the way, we have another operation planned…I’ll pick you up in an hour.

Tom Trento is founder of The United West and an author of Shariah: The Threat to America. [Back to top]

Michelle Van Cleave

Highest on the list of “lessons learned” from the terrorist attack of September 11 was the need for a retooled U.S. intelligence capability that could “connect the dots” (according to the bumper sticker version) and keep us safe. Fast forward ten years and (classified) billions of dollars. Is U.S. intelligence in fact better, more agile, more capable today?

Judging by results, the short answer would seem to be yes. A decade of concentrated resources, energy, and creativity — plus at times the courage and sacrifice of brave individuals to whom all Americans are indebted — has transformed the U.S. intelligence enterprise to fight the war on terror. Intelligence successes range from the spectacular (such as penetrating Bin Laden’s compound) to the silent and deep: it is not by accident that America has not been hit again since 9/11.

But pull back the curtain and another chorus emerges:

Intelligence support to military operations has been its defining center, yet “our vast intelligence apparatus still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we operate and the people we are trying to persuade.” (MG Mike Flynn, head of military intelligence in Afghanistan, January 2010.)

What passes for domestic intelligence remains a catch-as-catch-can collage among Homeland Security agencies, FBI field offices and local law enforcement self-help, with “no unified national intelligence collection plan or even a recognized set of national intelligence requirements.” (Hon Charlie Allen, former DHS Undersecretary for Intelligence, February 2011.)

The office of the Director of National Intelligence, created in 2005 to integrate, manage and improve U.S. intelligence, is roundly criticized for being just an added big layer of bureaucracy that lacks the necessary “authority,” “vision,” “coherence” [take your pick] to succeed.

And in my old business of counterintelligence, there seems to be collective amnesia over what Ames, Hanssen and other espionage cases taught us about needing a better way of finding and stopping foreign spies.

Optimizing U.S. intelligence to fight a war on terror has necessitated tradeoffs in resource allocation, analytic effort, intelligence collection and other operations. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has not taken a time out. With U.S. attention diverted, traditional adversaries and some new ones have seized the opportunity to advance old agendas and exploit new relationships.

Moscow is bent on reconstituting a lost empire as the Russian people see democracy slip from their fingers. An increasingly aggressive China is building a blue water navy, cyber-attack tools and a military presence in space. And no one can say what the future holds for the Middle East where rebellions are replacing long-standing rulers in contests of historic change and unknown direction.

History looks back on the attack on Pearl Harbor as the morning that “awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” There is no question that the events of September 11 instilled a similar resolve in our Nation’s leaders on that terrible day. Yet ten years later, I fear we may find ourselves more asleep to the larger threats ahead than we were on September 10. If so, the fault will not in the stars, or even in our adversaries, but in our own attitudes.

America, we hear, is in decline. Time to pull back from our far reaching presence in disparate corners of the globe. Time for others (the French, for example) to pull their own weight. Surely U.S. intelligence capabilities are good enough for a nation that has debilitating joblessness, a huge deficit and other economic worries at home. Aren’t they?

National leadership that manages expectations downward will tend to lead in that direction. And so we are told that soft power is the wave of the future. Speak loudly and carry a small stick. And leave U.S. intelligence to muddle through. Until the next time something goes horribly wrong.

Michelle Van Cleave was head of U.S. counterintelligence under President George W. Bush. [Back to top]

Diana West

It is something to have gone ten years without an Islamic attack of similarly gigantic proportions to those of September 11, 2001, but it is not enough. That’s because the decade we look back on is marked by a specifically Islamic brand of security from jihad. It was a security bought by Bush and Obama administration policies of appeasement based in apology for, and irrational denial of Islam’s war doctrine, its anti-liberty laws, and its non-Western customs. As a result of this policy of appeasement – submission — we now stand poised on the brink of a golden age.

Tragically for freedom of speech, conscience and equality before the law, however, it is an Islamic golden age. What’s worse is that our central institutions have actively primed themselves for it, having absorbed and implemented the central codes of Islam in the years since the 9/11 attacks, exactly as the jihadists hoped and schemed.

Take the US military.

In Afghanistan, our forces are now “trained on the sanctity of the holy book [the Koran] and go to significant steps to protect it,” as the official ISAF website reported last year.

Are they similarly trained to take “significant steps” to “protect” other books? Of course not. It’s reckless and irresponsible to demand that troops make the protection of any book a priority in a war zone. But it’s not only the case that US troops have become protectors of the Koran in the decade since 9/11. “Never talk badly about the Qur’an or its contents,” ISAF ordered troops earlier this year. Did the Pentagon say that about Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto? They, too, were blueprints for world conquest the US opposed. Of course, the Koran is different — at least according to Islamic law, and that clearly makes it different for the Pentagon. Not incidentally, the ISAF directive further cautioned troops to direct suspects to remove Korans from the vicinity before troops conduct their searches – no doubt for the unstated fear that infidel troops might defile the protected book.

“None may touch the Koran but someone in a state of ritual purity,” the Islamic law book Reliance of the Traveller declares. And “ritual purity,” naturally, is a state no non-Muslim can achieve under Islam.

Since when did Uncle Sam incorporate Islamic law into military protocols? Since 9/11.

Take the State Department.

In July, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a collaborative effort between the United States and the OIC, newly repackaged as Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (it used to be “C” for Conference). The get-together planned for Washington, DC is supposed to implement a non-binding resolution against religious “stereotyping” (read: Islamic “stereotyping”) that passed in March at the United Nations Human Rights Council. Such “stereotyping,” of course, includes everything from fact-based assessments linking Islamic doctrine and Islamic terrorism, to political cartoons. This makes this US-led international effort nothing short of a sinister attempt to snuff free speech about Islam. Which also makes it a US-co-chaired assault on the First Amendment. While this is treachery on the part of the US government, it also happens to be part and parcel of the OIC’s official ten-year-plan.

Since when did Uncle Sam get in the business of doing the bidding of the OIC? Since 9/11.

Such is the state of appeasement and Islamization ten years after the Twin Towers collapsed. Out of the clouds of dust and fire a golden age begins. Until we throw off this mental yoke of submission, it cannot be our own.

Diana West writes a weekly column that appears in about 120 newspapers, including the Washington Examiner. Her first book, The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization, was published in 2007. She is an author of Shariah: The Threat to America. She blogs at dianawest.net. [Back to top]

David Yerushalmi

It would seem self evident that a decade after 9/11, we are both safer and less safe from the threat of jihad-both the foreign sourced jihad and the domestic variety. We are certainly safer post-9/11 because we are, as a nation, at least aware of the foreign and domestic threats. The Patriot Act is an important legislative regime to provide the intelligence and law enforcement tools to interdict threats. We are also safer because after the Center for Security Policy’s Team B II Report entitled, “Sharia: The Threat to America,” became must reading for all serious participants in the public discourse on this national security threat, there is at least the public cognizance that sharia is the normative threat doctrine that animates the mujahideen the world over. Indeed, this public discourse regarding the threat from sharia is best demonstrated by the Muslim Brotherhood-OIC-Secular Progressive “Syndicate” that has formed to deny the brute facts of the sharia threat doctrine exposed to all.

We are, unfortunately, less safe in at least two critical ways. First, the Obama administration, and indeed, the professional bureaucracy, which remains in place irrespective of the occupant in the White House, continues to worship at the altar of political correctness which demands a willful blindness to the threat emanating from a sharia-centric Islam. This studied ignorance prevents a serious governmental discussion about the role sharia plays in animating and directing jihad. Second, our national foreign policy and war doctrines are guided by a nation-building notion that is predicated upon the empirically false axiom that all nations and religions are essentially alike in their desire for freedom and prosperity. This becomes operationally a commitment to counter-insurgency warfare which in turn is built on the failed doctrine that limited war and “democratization” can convert hostile nations and peoples into peaceful allies and friends. If these policies and doctrines continue, the public discourse will be effectively mooted as we lurch from one Arab Spring turned sour to another.

David Yerushalmi is a lawyer specializing in litigation and risk analysis, especially as it relates to geo-strategic policy. Mr. Yerushalmi is today considered an expert on Islamic law and its intersection with Islamic terrorism and national security. He is the general counsel of the Center for Security Policy and an author of Shariah: The Threat to America. [Back to top]

Fact-Checking NPRs Agenda Journalism on Terrorism

July 19, 2011David Reaboi

Yesterday’s poorly reported National Public Radio Morning Edition story, "Terrorism Training Casts Pall Over Muslim Employee," demands a fact-check critique. The NPR report alleged that the head of Ohio’s Muslim outreach program Omar al-Omari was wrongly terminated due to a law enforcement briefing on political Islam. We needed to issue several corrections:

NPR Claim #1: "Federal officials familiar with the case say Omari was singled out because he distinguished between extremist Muslims and mainstream Muslims in his outreach and training programs."

Fact Check #1: Many of the materials Omari had written, including his Guide to Arabic and Islamic Culture, and a brochure titled ‘Agents of Radicalization‘ were slanted towards a pro-radical Islamic view and support a revisionist history which blames America for many of the Middle East’s problems. In the Guide, Omari defines jihad as:

Jihad doesn’t mean holy war, as many people are led to believe. It actually means a struggle to achieve excellence. It’s the struggle Muslims face in life which varies from the Greater Jihad where a person is obliged to struggle within him/herself to overcome evil and establish good, to the Lesser Jihad which is the struggle in daily life. As Muslims are obliged to maximize their potential in order to be the best citizens they can be, jihad is the vehicle that lifts them to the challenge. The term holy war is a European concept that began with the Crusades and was extended to Islam by the West.

In an interview with The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Zuhdi Jasser, Muslim President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy was highly critical of Omari’s publications:

Jasser describes the two publications as "full of factual inaccuracies" including the assertion that 66 percent of American Arabs are Muslim (close to three-fourths are Christian). Alomari also "misses the core problem: political Islam." Instead, he indulges in "bizarre revisionist history" which "seeks to portray Muslims as victims."

The United States is engaged in "a war of ideas" with radical Islam. Regarding jihadists, "you would hope that [Alomari] would say that these are corrupt thugs who have hijacked our faith," Jasser told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. But instead he "describes [terrorism] as a response to what the West has done."

The material Alomari’s agency is putting out is "classic Islamist propaganda" which suggests that "these thugs who kill people in restaurants and shopping malls will stop if we solve the Arab-Israeli conflict," Jasser said. "In fact, they’ll find another grievance in a year or two."

The brochure "Agents of Radicalization," was printed but then copies were destroyed because Omari had listed as "organizations we are working with" a list that included numerous unindicted co-conspirators from the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial: "Some of the organizations we are working with," Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA) Muslim American Society (MAS) Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) Muslim Student Association (MSA)." Many of these groups were listed as unindicted coconspirators in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, US vs Holy Land Foundation.

Omari’s brochure on radicalization was never distributed, according to a source within the Department:

Thousands of copies were printed up by the department (at taxpayer expense, of course). Some copies had been provided to some of our partner agencies. As boxes of these things were getting ready to be shipped out, our director was contacted by some counter-terrorism officials and told that the brochure was promoting groups that the FBI and other agencies were trying to distance themselves from (like CAIR).

According to a report by counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole, Ten Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat,

"When [Omari] organized a forum on "interfaith dialogue" for the department in August 2009, the two lone Muslim representatives included a local imam, Hany Saqr, who was identified in the Holy Land Foundation trial as one of the top Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the nation; and CAIR-Ohio president Asma Mobin-Uddin."

NPR Claim #2: "Omari lost his job with the state of Ohio, though not because of claims that he had ties to terrorism…his employment application was incomplete. He hadn’t listed all of the schools where he had worked before taking the job with the state of Ohio."

Fact Check #2: Omari was fired not only for failing to list his prior employment at Columbus State Community College, "where he was fired after an improper consensual sexual affair with a student," according to the Columbus Dispatch newspaper but also for failing to disclose his prior work for the Jordanian Minister of Labor and for lying to investigators, also reported by FOX News and first published at the online investigative journalism website My Pet Jawa.

According to reports, Omari sued the female student who had reported his illicit activities as sexual harassment to higher-ups, claiming the woman had defamed him. He lost.

Omari is now currently suing the state of Ohio for wrongful termination, as well as other alleged discriminations he suffered while working as the Multicultural Relations Officer for the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

NPR Claim #3: According to the NPR story on the mid-April 2010 training session, "Deputy Chief Jeffrey Blackwell of the Columbus Division of Police stated about Omari that "I knew him really well … And I thought he was a great professional, so that was part of the reason why I was so surprised when his picture popped up in the presentation."

Fact Check #3: Omari’s highly Islamist-influenced brochure (the one that had to be destroyed) and guide had been widely publicized after he testified to Congress on March 17 and was widely criticized – one month PRIOR to the mid-April law enforcement training session, where the trainers discussed the content of the Omari publications with the attendees. The facts raised by the trainers about Omari’s publications were not in dispute when published in March or presented by trainers in April. According to participants the trainers had been invited to brief by the Columbus Police Department, and far from being "suspended," the training continued through to the end of the planned session. The entire course of instruction was completed.

This information was available to National Public Radio by simply googling Omari’s name, but NPR’s story was not an exercise in journalism. They’re in the whitewashing business for Islamist supporters like Omari.

Congress, on the other hand, is in the spending reduction business these days. Exactly one year after the public exposure of Omari began, on March 17, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to stop federal funding for National Public Radio. The vote was 228 to 192. Not even close.

New Study on Hate Crimes Debunks the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization

March 29, 2011Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy today released a revised edition of their groundbreaking longitudinal study, Religious Bias Crimes 2000-2009: Muslim, Jewish and Christian Victims – Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization, based on FBI statistics reported annually in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The Center’s study contradicts the assertions that religious bias crimes against Muslims have increased, and that the alleged cause is widespread “Islamophobia” in America. In fact, the study shows that religious bias crimes – also known as hate crimes – against Muslim Americans, measured by the categories of incidents, offenses or victims, have remained relatively low with a downward trend since 2001, and are significantly less than the numbers of bias crimes against Jewish victims.

The Center’s study also contradicts the assumption of increased hate crimes against Muslims which has been asserted by Senator Richard Durbin’s (D-IL) Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, and is the topic of hearings being held today. Printed copies of the study were delivered to each member of the U.S. Senate early this morning.

According to the Center’s analysis, in 2009, Jewish victims of hate crimes outnumbered Muslim victims by more than 8 to 1 (1,132 Jewish victims to 132 Muslim victims). From 2000 through 2009, for every one hate crime incident against a Muslim, there were six hate crime incidents against Jewish victims (1,580 Muslim incidents versus 9,692 Jewish incidents). Even in 2001 when religious bias crimes against Muslims increased briefly for a nine-week period, total anti-Muslim incidents, offenses and victims remained approximately half of the corresponding anti-Jewish totals.

The study provides hard data that disproves the counterfactual statements made by a small number of highly vocal Muslim lobbying groups, many linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as leftwing activists. Citing these false assumptions concerning America’s alleged “Islamophobia” and a supposed rising trend in hate crimes against Muslim Americans, these organizations argued against holding the March 10, 2011 House Committee on Homeland Security hearings on Muslim American radicalization, and have argued for today’s hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. The study shows that these arguments against the March 10 hearings, and for today’s March 29 hearings, are not based on facts but rather on a political agenda.

Frank Gaffney, President of Center for Security Policy remarked:

This report is important because it exposes a false belief perpetuated by a few vocal groups that religious bias crimes against Muslims are on the upswing. The truth is quite the opposite. These arguments, unsubstantiated by hard factual data, are corrosive to community relationships at every level of American society, and a potential threat to national security.

Note: This Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper is available as a PDF, or is reprinted below.

Religious Bias Crimes (2000-2009): Muslim, Christian & Jewish Victims – Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization

Clare M. Lopez, Roland Peer & Christine Brim

Introduction

Misperceptions about religious bias hate crimes in America are widespread. This study is a longitudinal comparison of religious bias hate crimes, as reported by the FBI, from the pre-9/11 year of 2000 through 2009, the most recent year for which statistics were available.[1] The assertion that religious bias hate crimes against one group in particular, Muslims in America, have proliferated in the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001 has gained acceptance within media and government, thanks to a steady drumbeat of assertions to this effect from a small but vocal group of advocacy organizations.

Internationally, the most aggressive of these is the 57 member state Organization of the Islamic Conference, with its so-called “Islamophobia Observatory.” In the U.S., the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)[2] and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)[3] have taken the lead in issuing claims that discrimination and religious bias hate crimes against Muslims are increasing.[4] These organizations have also asserted that “Islamophobia” and statements critical of Islam, Shariah law, or political Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood may be linked to the alleged rise in hate crimes. Alternatively, counterterrorism expert Steve Emerson has suggested “In advancing the notion that government policy has resulted in an undeserved backlash against ordinary Muslims, CAIR seeks to muster opposition to the anti-terror laws it finds objectionable.”[5]

To inform this public debate about religious bias hate crimes in America, the Center for Security Policy analyzed data from 2000 through 2009 for three FBI-identified victim groups: Jews, Muslims, and Christians (a combined statistic for the purposes of this whitepaper, combining separate FBI data for Catholics and Protestants). The source of all the religion bias crimes information cited in the following report is the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program,[6] which collects crime statistics on an annual basis and presents them online. Appendices B-T at the end of this report present those official FBI statistics in tables and charts showing the comparative incidence of religious hate crimes for Christians, Jews, and Muslims from 2000-2009.

The results may prove surprising to those who took CAIR or MPAC spokesmen at their word. For example, in 2009[7], in totals for a combined five categories of hate crime, from Simple Assault to Crimes Against Property, Jewish victims of hate crimes by religion outnumbered Muslim victims by more than 8 to 1 (1,132 Jewish victims to 132 Muslim victims). Nor is 2009 an anomalous year in terms of these numbers. Across the decade, from 2000 through 2009, Jewish victims of hate crimes by religion outnumbered their Christian and Muslim counterparts, with the exception of a nine-week period following the 9/11 terrorist acts for two categories of bias crimes: simple and aggravated assaults statistics.[8] From 2000 through 2009, for every one hate crime incident against a Muslim, there were six hate crime incidents against Jewish victims (1,580 Muslim incidents versus 9,692 Jewish incidents).

The Center for Security Policy presents this study to inform the dialogue surrounding religious bias crimes in the U.S. and to provide a fact-based resource that analysts, researchers, and citizens can use for a reality check.

Prior Research

Although a number of European academics and institutes (particularly the British[9]) have produced studies on the general topic of “Islamophobia” in the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, few Americans have tackled “hate crimes” from the objective perspective of a neutral academic and empirical study based on the available FBI statistics. Two studies are representative, though unlike our study, neither is a longitudinal study encompassing a ten-year period.

Jeffrey Kaplan, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh authored a report entitled, “Islamophobia in America?: September 11 and Islamophobic Hate Crime.”[10] Although this report does reference FBI hate crime statistics, it does so only for the period from 2000-2002, as Kaplan’s study focus is that period of time just after the September 11 attacks on the U.S. He concludes that “The intense phase of these attacks comprised approximately nine weeks, after which the number of hate crimes fell sharply” due, he writes, to national leadership from the U.S. president, decisive law enforcement intervention, grassroots outreach to Muslim communities across the country, and a “rapid dissolution of American moral certainty about the War on Terror.”

In other research, Steven George Salaita produced a study for the New Centennial Review in the Fall of 2006 which set out to “summarize the evolution of the Arab image in American media since Ronald Stockton’s seminal 1994 analysis, with emphasis on the role of 9/11, and advance the usage of the term anti-Arab racism as a more accurate replacement for the traditional descriptors Orientalism and Islamophobia in relation to the negative portrayal of Arabs in the United States.”[11] Unlike our study, the author approached the topic with a non-empirical framework.

Scholarly research in the area of hate crimes is increasingly a popular area for specialization, as witnessed by the Journal of Hate Studies, celebrating its 8^th Volume in 2010.[12] A useful short review of the field’s scope – though unfortunately not addressing a longitudinal analysis nor the FBI data – can be found in Barbara Perry’s essay, “The more things change…post-9/11 trends in hate crime scholarship,” a summary of the various disciplines’ research addressing the issue of hate.[13]

Methodology and Findings

The “Religious Bias Crimes in America” study is a longitudinal look at the instances of religious bias crimes, also known as hate crimes, against Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the United States from 2000 to 2009. The use of the term “Hate Crime” is defined by the FBI in its 1996 Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection[14] as well as in its Uniform Crime Reporting Program,[15] which find their authorization in the April 23, 1990 “Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990.”[16] This legislation requires the U.S. Department of Justice to compile and publish an annual summary of data about crimes that “manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” This study focuses on those hate crimes that clearly demonstrate prejudice based on bias against Christians (Catholics and Protestants combined), Jews and Muslims, as identified by the FBI. Three other categories of religious bias crime for which the FBI collects statistics, but which were not included in this study because they are less specific for purposes of comparison are: anti-other religion, anti-multi-religious group, and anti-atheism-agnosticism.

The Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines define a bias crime:

A criminal offense committed against a person or property which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin; also known as Hate Crime.

Definitions of the various offenses against person and property are also provided in the Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines.[17]

Three broad categories of religious hate crimes are included in this study: incidents, offenses, and victims. A single incident may include more than one offense (for example, intimidation and robbery). An offense may have more than one victim. A victim may be the target of more than one offense. Data categories for offenses and victims are sub-divided between crimes against persons, and crimes against property. Each of these sub-categories is further broken down by specific types of crimes. For example, crimes against persons include 1) murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 2) forcible rape, 3) simple assault, 4) aggravated assault, 5) intimidation (by far the largest crimes against persons category), and 6) other. Crimes against property include 1) robbery, 2) burglary, 3) larceny/theft, 4) motor vehicle theft, 5) arson, 6) destruction/damage/vandalism (by far the largest crimes against property category), and 7) other. A third category, crimes against society, (at the same hierarchical level as crimes against persons, and crimes against property) presented only insignificant numbers for all three religions in the study (19 victims for all three religious groups from all ten years combined – see Appendix C, Table 2).

While there has been a slight variation through the years, anti-Jewish hate crimes have hovered around 70% of total anti-religious hate crime, while anti-Muslim violence has accounted for around 10%, and anti-Christian hate crime has totaled slightly less than 10%. Jewish and Muslim populations in America, as noted previously, each are estimated at 6 million persons (with an alternate estimate by Pew for the Muslim population). There was an increase in anti-Muslim violence in 2001 (exceeding both Jewish and Christian rates for simple and aggravated assault), which decreased to the 10% range in 2002, where it has remained (a temporary smaller spike was seen in 2006 against both Jewish and Muslim victims). Even in the anomalous year of 2001, total anti-Muslim incidents, offenses, and number of victims were approximately half of the corresponding anti-Jewish totals (Muslim Incidents – 481, Victims – 546, Offenses – 554; Jewish Incidents – 1043, Victims – 1117, Offenses – 1196). That the terrorist attacks occurred relatively late in the year – in September of 2001 – suggests that the increase in anti-Muslim violence occurred over a period of a few weeks, or more specifically nine weeks as noted in Kaplan’s study. Looking at total numbers of victims over the 2000-2009 period, for every Muslim victim from 2000 to 2009, there have been over six (6.13) Jewish incidents of hate crimes. As noted previously, in 2009 the ratio increased: for every Muslim victim, there were even more – over 8 – Jewish victims.

Most anti-religious hate crimes in the United States are not of a violent nature against persons. Aggregating anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-Jewish hate crimes against persons and property from 2000 to 2009[18], demonstrates that 64% of total hate crimes are crimes against property, and of these, 92% are cases of destruction/damage/vandalism, and the majority of the remaining 8% are burglary and larceny/theft. There have been 38 robbery offenses, or 0.3% of total hate crimes and of these, 23 were anti-Jewish. The rate of arson is very small, accounting for slightly more than 1% of total crimes against property.

Of the remaining 36% of total cases that are crimes against persons, most (77%) are classified as intimidation. Virtually all of the other 23% are simple or aggravated assault. There were no rape cases and only one murder, of a Jewish victim. There was an increase in 2006 in anti-Muslim aggravated assault (24 offenses), compared to 22 anti-Jewish offenses, and in 2009 (11 vs. 9). There were no similar spikes in cases of simple assault, and in other years, anti-Jewish aggravated and simple assault cases are double that of anti-Muslim assault cases. While cases of anti-Jewish aggravated assault decreased between 2008 and 2009 from 25 to 9, anti-Jewish simple assault cases increased sharply from 58 to 82. When compared to the overall population of over 300 million people, anti-religious hate crimes are not highly prevalent in the United States for any religious group. Bias-motivated crime is simply not that common for any religious group in the U.S.

Comparing the prevalence of anti-religious hate crimes by religion requires measuring the number of incidents against the overall population of Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the United States. Self-identified Christians accounted in 2008 for 76% of the adult American population[19], or 173,402,000 persons, significantly higher than for Muslims or Jews, and therefore the relative prevalence of anti-Christian crimes is by far the lowest of the three. Muslim groups in the U.S. such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), with an interest in presenting the U.S. Muslim population as equivalent to the Jewish one, repeatedly have declared the number of Muslims in the U.S. to be about 6 million persons, ,[20] Within the same range, Chicago Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, the 2010 Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions’ Board of Trustees Chairman, has cited 2001 estimates of 5.8 million and 6.7 million Muslims in America.[21] On February 3, 2011, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) similarly cited “the reality of 6 million Muslims.”[22] A lower estimate was published by the Pew Research Center in January 2011, when it put the Muslim population of the U.S. at 2.6 million.[23] The 2010 US Census estimates the Jewish population in the United States to be 6.5 million, or 2.1% of the total population in 2009, and this includes those who self-define as Jewish either by religion, ethnicity, or culture. [24] This broad definition thus can be seen as defining an upper boundary for the U.S. Jewish population, given that the FBI hate crime statistics define Judaism as a religion.

The Facts Contradict the Myths

These findings seem to contradict the popular perception that Muslims face more discrimination than Jews in the United States. For example, a Pew poll conducted in 2009 found that 58% of Americans believe there is “a lot of discrimination against” Muslims, opposed to 35% who thought the same for Jews. [25] FBI statistics do show a lower percentage of anti-Jewish hate crimes have identified offenders, which may contribute to the misperception that anti-Jewish hate crimes in the United States are not as prevalent as they really are. Of total known offenders from the period of 2000 to 2009, 56% committed anti-Jewish hate crimes; the number rises to 67% when unknown offenders are included.

The process of local law enforcement data collection and categorization is inconsistent and both over-reporting and under-reporting may occur[26]. The goal of our analysis is to show the relative frequency of hate crimes, by religion and by type.

We have looked at primarily at some summary statistics for this report. In addition, we include the tables here as appendices along with a selection of charts. The spreadsheet data tables and charts are available for download in excel format at securefreedom.org.

Hate Crime Rhetoric

Concerns about a backlash against Muslims in America arose in the aftermath of 9/11 and were given added impetus by books, studies, and other publications and statements by various organizations and Muslim leadership figures and groups. The November 2002 report by Human Rights Watch, “We Are Not the Enemy: Hate Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims, and Those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim after September 11″[27] is representative of the genre. Citing a “severe wave of backlash violence” involving “more than two thousand September 11-related backlash incidents” against Arabs and Muslims in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, the report claims such people were targeted “solely because they shared or were perceived as sharing the national background or religion of the hijackers and al-Qaeda members deemed responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”[28] Although the report goes on to claim that “comprehensive and reliable national statistics are not available,” this study cites the readily-available official FBI statistics that indeed do show a spike from 28 to 481 total hate crimes against Muslims between the years 2000 and 2001; however, according to the FBI figures, even that high mark is exceeded by a factor of two for the typical annual total of hate crimes against Jews in America.[29]

The January 6, 2010 report, “Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim Americans,” produced with funding from the Department of Justice, also cites an “increased anti-Muslim bias” in the years since the 9/11 attacks. This paper’s three authors, David Schanzer and Ebrahim Moosa of Duke University and Charles Kurzman from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, assert that Muslim-Americans bear the brunt of government counterterrorism initiatives, some of which they consider discriminatory.[30]

Then there is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which styles itself an organization “that challenges stereotypes of Islam and Muslims” and a “Washington-based Islamic advocacy group” dedicated to challenging “anti-Muslim discrimination nationwide.”[31] The CAIR website includes an extensive section on “Islamophobia,”[32] a term reportedly coined by the Muslim Brotherhood front group, the International Islamic Institute of Thought (IIIT),[33] in an effort to find a concept useful in beating back critics of Islamic law (shariah) and jihad.[34]

CAIR traces the phenomenon of “Islamophobia” to writing by Samuel Huntington in the 1990s that posited a coming “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West. CAIR claims that “when 9/11 happened,” those already prejudiced against Islam were influenced by “right wing outlets” and “pro-Israeli commentators such as Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Judith Miller, and Bernard Lewis” to amplify an atmosphere of “extreme prejudice, suspicion, and fear against Muslims.”[35] Deftly sidestepping the historical record of decades of international terror attacks perpetrated by Muslim jihadis well before 9/11[36], in addition to centuries of shariah-inspired jihad that preceded the current one[37], CAIR’s Islamophobia page cites a number of surveys conducted in the years following 2001 that indicate Americans believe Islam encourages violence, does not teach respect for the beliefs of non-Muslims, or that mosques ought to be monitored by U.S. law enforcement officials. Americans’ entirely rational concerns about jihadist attacks and the encroachment of shariah on American society are then described not only as the font of “discrimination, exclusion, and violence” against Muslims (without citing any official statistics to substantiate the accusation), but the naturally-to-be-expected source of Muslims’ own “disillusionment, social disorder, and….irrational violence.” [Emphasis added][38]

Slander, Blasphemy, and Insult to Islam in Shariah

It is imperative that western societies like ours understand the serious implications within Islamic law for accusations of insult to Islam, Islamic doctrine, or Muslims. Under shariah, the offense of slander is defined very differently than in U.S. law. According to the ‘Umdat al-Salik (or Reliance of the Traveller), a book of Islamic law that carries the imprimatur of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the global seat of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, Slander “means to mention anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike…”[39] Several pages later, a further explanation is provided: “A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim to relate or prevents disobedience.”[40] Under Islamic law, truth is no defense against an accusation of slander and the offense is held to be a Hudud crime, one deserving the harshest punishment.

Even more serious than Slander under Islamic law is the offense of Blasphemy. The Muslim authorities hold Blasphemy to be insulting or abusing that which is held sacred in Islam. This can include anything from cursing Allah or the prophet Muhammad to irreverent behavior towards Islamic religious beliefs or customs. Even expressing opinions about Islam considered at variance with normative beliefs can be construed as blasphemy under this extremely subjective definition. Not only Muslims traditionally have been held accountable under the Islamic blasphemy laws, but also non-Muslims, especially dhimmis (conquered, subjugated People of the Book, i.e., Christians and Jews). “Reviling Muslims” or “Harming the Friends of Allah Most High” are considered serious sins, termed “Enormities”.[41] Such offenses are described in Islamic law as those that entail either a threat of punishment in the hereafter, a prescribed Hadd punishment, or being accursed by Allah or the prophet Muhammad.[42]

Islamic laws on Blasphemy and Slander should not be considered outmoded or an irrelevant remnant of the 7th century: they remain very much in effect in modern times, as the following excerpt from the authoritative Malaysian scholar Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s 1997 essay, “Freedom of Expression in Islam“, makes clear:

“However, a general observation which should be made here is that in matters which pertain to the dogma of Islam, or those which are regulated by the direct authority of the Qur’an or Sunnah, criticism, either from Muslims or non-Muslims, will not be entertained, as personal or public opinion does not command authority in such matters. Islam is basically a religion of authority, and the values of good and evil, or rights and duties are not determined by reference to public opinion, or popular vote…” [Emphasis added][43]

It might be added that Dr. Kamali, who was a Professor of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at the International Islamic University Malaysia and also Dean of the International Institute of Islamic Thought & Civilization (ISTAC) from 1985 – 2007, and is currently Chairman and CEO of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies, Malaysia, is considered not only a leading international academic authority on Islam, but a “moderate Muslim.” He was on the advisory group for Imam Feisal Rauf’s “Shariah Index Project” and is a listed expert at the purportedly moderate organization World Organization for Resource Development and Education (WORDE).[44]

The deadly intent of the shariah laws on Blasphemy and Slander repeatedly has been demonstrated in recent times: among examples which could be cited are the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against the novelist Salman Rushdie, the 2004 murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, and Anwar al-Awlaki’s 2010 fatwa against the Washington state journalist Molly Norris (who was forced into permanent hiding for jesting online about an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day”). The consequences, therefore, of being accused by a Muslim of offending Islamic beliefs, customs, or laws should not be underestimated. The developing concept of “Islamophobia” obviously is heading in this direction.

Here is a final example. Given the centrality of this doctrine to Islam, the 21 February 2011 demand by CAIR for Fox News program host and former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, to apologize for “inaccurate and offensive” comments about Islam and to meet with Muslim leaders to discuss growing Islamophobia in American society”[45] needs to be taken very seriously. CAIR’s leadership knows exactly what such an accusation implies under Islamic law; it is to be hoped that the Governor does, too.

There is one more aspect of the Islamic laws on Slander that needs to be mentioned in this regard. Our jihadi enemy does not want the non-Muslim infidel world (and especially our national security leadership) to understand the true character and intentions of those shariah adherents who are dedicated to “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”[46] Specifically, the enemy reserves the right to employ taqiyya (deceit and dissimulation) as well as the Islamic laws on obligatory lying[47] to keep such information from those whose knowledge of it could lead to effective defensive measures against shariah. Attempted enforcement of this legally sanctioned code of silence about the genuine nature and objectives of the jihadist enemy is one of the key usages of the Slander and Blasphemy laws in the west.[48]

“Islamophobia” and Defensive Jihad

To carry through the Islamic legal principles inherent in the Slander and Blasphemy laws to their logical end point, it is useful to refer to classical as well as modern pronouncements on the elements that Muslim scholars hold necessary to justify and declare defensive jihad. For, in fact, this justification is where accusations of “Islamophobia”, religious “hate crimes,” and insult to Islam plausibly lead. In fact, in numerous cases, hate crime violence or intimidating threats of violence against persons and property in response to perceived “blasphemy” has been a response in the last decade in Muslim-majority countries, and also in Canada, Europe, and the U.S. The examples in Muslim-majority countries are too numerous to list, but a sample of U.S. cases include the jihad threats against Molly Norris, creator of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”, the South Park cartoon producers, and publications that republished the Danish “Muhammed Cartoons.”

Classical scholars of Islam, such as Al-Shaybani (8th-9th century disciple of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence and a jurist in his own right) and Ibn Rushd (12th century legal scholar known as Averroes in the West) have written extensively and assertively on the obligatory nature of offensive jihad according to shariah, simply for the purpose of establishing Islam in the world.[49] It was understood both explicitly and implicitly that defensive jihad was obligatory as well. Among the Qur’anic verses commonly cited as justification is the following:

“Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely.” — (Q 8:39)

Turning to the modern Islamic scholars, Louay Safi is a Muslim author and scholar who has served at the top ranks of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in the U.S. He formerly was the Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)’s Leadership Development Center, Executive Director and Director of Research for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), editor of the Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, and President of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS) (1999-2003). ISNA, IIIT, and the AMSS all appear on the Muslim Brotherhood’s own list of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”[50] Safi currently serves as Common Word Fellow at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at GeorgetownUniversity. His credentials, in other words, would seem impeccable to speak to Islamic rulings on defensive warfare.

The slim 2001 paperback book, “Peace and the Limits of War,” was authored by Safi and published by the IIIT in response to the post-9/11 surge in public awareness of Islam and jihad. While Safi attempts to distance himself from the classical Islamic scholars on the topic of mandatory offensive jihad, he has no such compunctions when it comes to “War in defense of Muslim individuals and property.” He writes:

“When wrong is inflicted on a Muslim individual by a member, or members, of another political community….the Islamic state is obligated to make sure the individual, or his family, is compensated for his suffering, and that his rights are upheld…it suffices to say that the Islamic state should ensure that justice has been done to the wronged Muslim, even if that take a declaration of war…”[51]

Perceptions about the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims matter, especially when considered in the context of Islamic law (shariah), which criminalizes insults to Islam as “slander” or even “blasphemy.”[52] A false belief, perpetuated by a few vocal groups, that deliberate religious bias crimes against Muslims are increasing regardless of the lack of support by hard factual data, is corrosive to community relationships at every level of American society, and a potential threat to First Amendment free speech rights and national security. Efforts at the international level, especially by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)[53], to define any questioning of Islamic doctrine as “hate speech” leading to “hate crimes”, such as “Islamophobia” and as a “human rights violation” by way of official resolutions at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), directly create the premise for criminalization of free speech. Further, although non-binding at this time, such UNHRC resolutions conceivably could legitimize an eventual casus belli, by which an appropriate fatwa could declare justification for violent defensive jihad by the forces of Islam. As recently as March 7 2011, James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, formerly with the Democratic National Committee, wrote of critics of the Shariah law and Islamic terrorism in America, that:

If these ‘professional bigots” have provided the grist, the mill itself was run by the vast network of rightwing talk radio and TV shows and websites and prominent preachers, who have combined to amplify the anti-Muslim message nationwide. Their efforts have done real damage. They have tormented descent [sic] public servants, created protests that have shuttered legitimate institutions, fomented hate crimes and produced fear in the Muslim community.[54]

Conclusions

This data presented in this study demonstrate that common perceptions about the incidence of “hate crimes” in America that are directed at individuals or groups on the grounds of religious identification often mistakenly ascribe the majority of such offenses to anti-Muslim sentiment. To the contrary, the 2000-2009 FBI crime statistics data used in this study indicate that the majority of U.S. “hate crimes” in fact are perpetrated against Jews. The spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes following 9-11 did not last longer than nine weeks according to prior research. The most important conclusion may be that total religious bias crimes are few in a country of over 300 million persons. In fact, the U.S. is a model as a tolerant country, with a significantly low (and in some cases falling) number of hate crimes, in which most Muslim Americans are fully integrated and accepted, as well as economically and socially successful, fellow citizens.

The persistence, scope, and sophistication of the campaign to portray Muslims in America inaccurately, as making up the majority of “hate crime” victims, points to an organized effort whose potential implications derive from Islamic law (shariah). Insult towards Islam, Islamic doctrine, and individual Muslims, especially by non-Muslim infidels, can carry serious penalties under Shariah law. Further, because the “crimes” of insult, slander, and blasphemy are so subjectively defined in shariah, the doorway is wide open for those with an agenda of victimology to lay a foundation that not inconceivably could lead ultimately to a declaration of “defensive jihad” against persons, property or the broader community. “Homegrown” jihadist terrorism can find its motivation as part of the radicalization process in this heightened, and counter-factual, sense of victimization that justifies organized or “lone wolf” acts of jihad that are rationalized as defensive.

Charts & Data

Charts and data for this Occasional Paper are available in the PDF, or as Microsoft Excel files below:

[1] Center for Security Policy staff and interns contributed to the data entry, analysis, and verification.

[2] The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) presents itself as an Islamic advocacy group and America’s largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization. CAIR was included on the Department of Justice’s published list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding case of 2007-2008. Its Internet home page may be found at http://www.cair.com/Home.aspx . See CAIR’s reports on bias from 2007 (http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/2007-Civil-Rights-Report.pdf)
and 2008 (http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/civilrights2008.pdf ).

[3] The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) calls itself a “Public service agency working for the civil rights of American Muslims”. According to the counterterrorism think tank The Investigative Project, “MPAC’s public advocacy often involves defending accused terror financiers and opposing law enforcement efforts to root out terrorists and their enablers. In nearly every case, MPAC has responded to investigations by the FBI and the U.S. Treasury Department with complaints that authorities have not proven their allegations, and variations on the constant themes that enforcement actions unfairly single out Muslim groups and ‘bear strong signs of politicization.’ At the same time, MPAC has been equally diligent in defending individual terrorists uncovered by federal investigations.” http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/181,accessed February 28, 2011.

[4] “Behind CAIR’s Hate Crimes Report,” Daniel Skinner, The Weekly Standard, may 6, 2004, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/054aycfi.asp; “CAIR’s Hate Crime Nonsense,” Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, May 18, 2005, http://www.danielpipes.org/2627/cairs-hate-crimes-nonsense; “Fudging the Numbers on Hate Crimes,” Mike Pesca, NPR, may 23, 2005, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4662915; all accessed February 28, 2011.

[5] “CAIR Pushes Phony Charges of Anti-Muslim Hysteria, Hate Crimes,” Investigative Project, April 4, 2008. http://www.steveemerson.com/2008/04/cair-pushes-phony-charges-of accessed February 28, 2011.

[6] The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program and its annual Crime in the United States reports are described online at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[7] 2009 is the most recent year for which full data are available. See the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2009 at http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/victims.html, accessed 12 February 2011.

[8] Simple Assaults by Victim by Religion for 2001 (Muslim 66, Jewish 45, Christian 3); Aggravated Assaults by Victim by Religion for 2001 (Muslim 27, Jewish 13, Christian 1)

[9] Neil Chakraborti, editor, Hate Crime: Concepts, policy, future directions, Willan Publishing, 2010.

[10] Kaplan, Jeffrey, “Islamophobia in America?: September 11 and Islamophobic Hate Crime,” Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Accessed 20 February 2011 at http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a737727150

[11] Salaita, Steven George, “Beyond Orientalism and Islamophobia: 9/11, Anti-Arab Racism, and the Mythos of National Pride,” CR: The New Centennial Review, Michigan State University Press, Volume 6, Number 2, Fall 2006, pp. 245-266. Accessed online 21 February 2011 at http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/new_centennial_review/v006/6.2salaita.html

[12] Journal of Hate Studies, Volume 8 (No. 1), 2010, http://journals.gonzaga.edu/index.php/johs/issue/archive accessed February 28, 2011. The Journal’s authors defend a wide spectrum of beliefs, ranging from a positive review for the anti-jihad movie “Obsession” (Vol 5, #1) to numerous articles from a more conventional perspedctive.

[13]Perry, Hate Crime: Concepts, Policy, Future Directions, p. 17

[14] Accessed online 21 February 2011 at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/trainguidedc99.pdf

[15] The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program and its annual Crime in the United States reports are described online at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[16] 28 U.S.C. § 534. See Appendix C for the full text of this legislation.

[17] Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines, p. 24, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/hcguidelinesdc99.pdf accessed February 28, 2011.

[18] This does not include the negligible number (19) of “crimes against society) from 2000-2009 for all three religious groups.

[19] “Self-described Religious Identification of Adult Population: 1990 – 2008,” U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0075.pdf, accessed February 28, 2011.

[20] Ihsan Bagby, Ph.D., Paul M. Perl, Ph.D., Bryan T. Froehle, Ph.D., The Mosque in America: A National Portrait, Council on American Islamic Relations, April 26, 2001, p.6: “Estimates of a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America seem reasonable…”

[21] Abdul Malik Mujahid, “Muslims In America: Profile 2001,” Soundvision, http://www.soundvision.com/info/yearinreview/2001/profile.asp , accessed February 28, 2011.

[22] “Background Information on Radicalization Hearings,” Muslim Public Affairs Council, February 3, 2011. http://www.mpac.org/programs/government-relations/background-information-on-radicalization-hearings.php# accessed February 28, 2011.

[23] The Future of the Global Muslim Population, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Jan. 27, 2011. http://pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx. Accessed 7 March 2011 at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1872/muslim-population-projections-worldwide-fast-growth.

[24] Table 77, Christian Church Adherents, 2000, and Jewish Population, 2009 – States. 2010 US Census. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0077.pdf.

[25] Muslims Widely Seen as Facing Discrimination. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Sept. 9, 2009. http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Muslims-Widely-Seen-As-Facing-Discrimination.aspx.

[26] “FBI Report Notes Rise in Hate Crimes,” Deborah Tedford, NPR, November 23, 2009, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120715771 , accessed February 28, 2011.

[27] Available in PDF format and accessed 21 February 2011 at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2002/11/14/we-are-not-enemy

[28] “We Are Not the Enemy: Hate Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims, and Those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim after September 11,” Human Rights Watch, NOVEMBER 2002 VOL. 14, NO. 6 (G) (p. 4).

[29] See Appendix D, “Hate Crime Trends: 2000-2007”

[30] Schanzer, David, Charles Kurzman, and Ebrahim Moosa, “Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans,” January 6, 2010. Accessed online 21 February 2011 at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229868.pdf

[31] The official CAIR website is at http://www.cair.com/Home.aspx. CAIR’s foundational organization, The International Association for Palestine, was included on a list of organizations called “our organizations and the organizations of our friends” in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document called “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

[32] “Islamophobia,” http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx accessed February 28 2011.

[33] The website of the Herndon, Virginia-based International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) is at http://www.iiit.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx The IIIT, like CAIR, is on the Muslim Brotherhood list of its friends and organizations of friends; also like CAIR, the IIIT was included in a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

[34] Muhammad, Abdur-Rahman, “Whether or not Ground Zero mosque is built, U.S. Muslims have access to the American dream,” The New York Daily News as cited by The Investigative Project on Terrorism, September 5, 2010. Accessed online 21 February 2010 at http://www.investigativeproject.org/2164/whether-or-not-ground-zero-mosque-is-built-us. Muhammad is a former member of the IIIT, whose by-line states that he “now works to combat Islamic extremism in the American Muslim community.”

[35] CAIR “Islamophobia” page; accessed 21 February 2011 at http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx

[36] “List of Islamic Terror Attacks Against America Before 9/11,” http://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/list-of-islamic-attacks-against-america/ , accessed February 28, 2011.

[37] Andrew Bostom and Ibn Warraq, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, Prometheus Books, 2008.

[38] “Islamophobia,” http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx

[39] ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Section r2.0: Slander (p. 730).

[40] Ibid, Section r3.0 (p. 741).

[41] Ibid, Section p50.0 (Hurting or Reviling Muslims) and p51.0 (Harming the Friends of Allah Most High) (pp. 686-688.

[42] Ibid, The Author’s Introduction, Section p0.0 (pp. 651-2).

[43] Kamali, Mohammad Hashim, “Freedom of Expression in Islam,” Islamic Text Society, 1997. From chapter IX. Freedom of Religion (Al-Hurriyyah al-Diniyyah). Accessed online 22 February 2011 at www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/…/freedom/kamali_freedom.doc

[44] “Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Biographical Highlights,” http://worde.org/specialists/ProfessorMohammadHashimKamali.php accessed February 28, 2011.

[45] “Dissemblers At Council On American Islamic Relations – CAIR – Whip Up The Discredited Bogeyman Of Islamophobia,” PipelineNews.org, February 21, 2011. Accessed 22 February 2011 at http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=cair2212011102.htm

[46] “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” a 5/22/91 Muslim Brotherhood document entered into evidence in the 2007-2008 U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

[47] ‘Umdat al-Salik, Section r8.0, Lying (beginning on p. 744).

[48] “Shariah: The Threat to America,” Center for Security Policy, October 2010 (pp. 103-106).

[49] See “The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani’s Siyar” by Majid Khadduri and Ibn Rushd’s magnum opus, “Bidayat al-Mudtahid wa-Nihayat al-Muqtasid” for their authoritative treatments of jihad.

[50] “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” 1991. ISNA also appeared on the U.S. Department of Justice list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

[51] Safi, Louay M, “Peace and the Limits of War.” International Institute of Islamic Thought, Herndon, VA.

[52] See “Slander (Ghiba)” in Section r2.0 of the ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (pg. 730). For a thorough discussion of Slander and Blasphemy in Islamic law, see also the Center for Security Policy study, “Shariah: The Threat to America,” September 22, 2010. Available online at http://www.amazon.com/Shariah-America-Exercise-Competitive-Analysis/dp/098229476X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297556949&sr=1-1

[53] Organization of the Islamic Conference: http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html

[54] “Islamophobia can create radicalization,” James Zogby, March 7, 2011, The Nation, http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/07-Mar-2011/Islamophobia-can-create-radicalisation/1 accessed March 8, 2011.

New Study on Hate Crimes Debunks the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization

March 9, 2011Clare M. Lopez

Frank Gaffney, President of Center for Security Policy remarked:

Note: This Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper is available as a PDF, or is reprinted below.

Religious Bias Crimes (2000-2009): Muslim, Christian & Jewish Victims – Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization

Clare M. Lopez, Roland Peer & Christine Brim

Introduction

Internationally, the most aggressive of these is the 57 member state Organization of the Islamic Conference, with its so-called "Islamophobia Observatory." In the U.S., the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)[2] and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)[3] have taken the lead in issuing claims that discrimination and religious bias hate crimes against Muslims are increasing.[4] These organizations have also asserted that "Islamophobia" and statements critical of Islam, Shariah law, or political Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood may be linked to the alleged rise in hate crimes. Alternatively, counterterrorism expert Steve Emerson has suggested "In advancing the notion that government policy has resulted in an undeserved backlash against ordinary Muslims, CAIR seeks to muster opposition to the anti-terror laws it finds objectionable."[5]

Prior Research

Although a number of European academics and institutes (particularly the British[9]) have produced studies on the general topic of "Islamophobia" in the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, few Americans have tackled "hate crimes" from the objective perspective of a neutral academic and empirical study based on the available FBI statistics. Two studies are representative, though unlike our study, neither is a longitudinal study encompassing a ten-year period.

Jeffrey Kaplan, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh authored a report entitled, "Islamophobia in America?: September 11 and Islamophobic Hate Crime."[10] Although this report does reference FBI hate crime statistics, it does so only for the period from 2000-2002, as Kaplan’s study focus is that period of time just after the September 11 attacks on the U.S. He concludes that "The intense phase of these attacks comprised approximately nine weeks, after which the number of hate crimes fell sharply" due, he writes, to national leadership from the U.S. president, decisive law enforcement intervention, grassroots outreach to Muslim communities across the country, and a "rapid dissolution of American moral certainty about the War on Terror."

In other research, Steven George Salaita produced a study for the New Centennial Review in the Fall of 2006 which set out to "summarize the evolution of the Arab image in American media since Ronald Stockton’s seminal 1994 analysis, with emphasis on the role of 9/11, and advance the usage of the term anti-Arab racism as a more accurate replacement for the traditional descriptors Orientalism and Islamophobia in relation to the negative portrayal of Arabs in the United States."[11] Unlike our study, the author approached the topic with a non-empirical framework.

Scholarly research in the area of hate crimes is increasingly a popular area for specialization, as witnessed by the Journal of Hate Studies, celebrating its 8^th Volume in 2010.[12] A useful short review of the field’s scope – though unfortunately not addressing a longitudinal analysis nor the FBI data – can be found in Barbara Perry’s essay, "The more things change…post-9/11 trends in hate crime scholarship," a summary of the various disciplines’ research addressing the issue of hate.[13]

Methodology and Findings

The "Religious Bias Crimes in America" study is a longitudinal look at the instances of religious bias crimes, also known as hate crimes, against Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the United States from 2000 to 2009. The use of the term "Hate Crime" is defined by the FBI in its 1996 Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection[14] as well as in its Uniform Crime Reporting Program,[15] which find their authorization in the April 23, 1990 "Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990."[16] This legislation requires the U.S. Department of Justice to compile and publish an annual summary of data about crimes that "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." This study focuses on those hate crimes that clearly demonstrate prejudice based on bias against Christians (Catholics and Protestants combined), Jews and Muslims, as identified by the FBI. Three other categories of religious bias crime for which the FBI collects statistics, but which were not included in this study because they are less specific for purposes of comparison are: anti-other religion, anti-multi-religious group, and anti-atheism-agnosticism.

The Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines define a bias crime:

A criminal offense committed against a person or property which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin; also known as Hate Crime.

Definitions of the various offenses against person and property are also provided in the Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines.[17]

Comparing the prevalence of anti-religious hate crimes by religion requires measuring the number of incidents against the overall population of Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the United States. Self-identified Christians accounted in 2008 for 76% of the adult American population[19], or 173,402,000 persons, significantly higher than for Muslims or Jews, and therefore the relative prevalence of anti-Christian crimes is by far the lowest of the three. Muslim groups in the U.S. such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), with an interest in presenting the U.S. Muslim population as equivalent to the Jewish one, repeatedly have declared the number of Muslims in the U.S. to be about 6 million persons, ,[20] Within the same range, Chicago Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, the 2010 Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions’ Board of Trustees Chairman, has cited 2001 estimates of 5.8 million and 6.7 million Muslims in America.[21] On February 3, 2011, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) similarly cited "the reality of 6 million Muslims."[22] A lower estimate was published by the Pew Research Center in January 2011, when it put the Muslim population of the U.S. at 2.6 million.[23] The 2010 US Census estimates the Jewish population in the United States to be 6.5 million, or 2.1% of the total population in 2009, and this includes those who self-define as Jewish either by religion, ethnicity, or culture. [24] This broad definition thus can be seen as defining an upper boundary for the U.S. Jewish population, given that the FBI hate crime statistics define Judaism as a religion.

The Facts Contradict the Myths

These findings seem to contradict the popular perception that Muslims face more discrimination than Jews in the United States. For example, a Pew poll conducted in 2009 found that 58% of Americans believe there is "a lot of discrimination against" Muslims, opposed to 35% who thought the same for Jews. [25] FBI statistics do show a lower percentage of anti-Jewish hate crimes have identified offenders, which may contribute to the misperception that anti-Jewish hate crimes in the United States are not as prevalent as they really are. Of total known offenders from the period of 2000 to 2009, 56% committed anti-Jewish hate crimes; the number rises to 67% when unknown offenders are included.

Hate Crime Rhetoric

Concerns about a backlash against Muslims in America arose in the aftermath of 9/11 and were given added impetus by books, studies, and other publications and statements by various organizations and Muslim leadership figures and groups. The November 2002 report by Human Rights Watch, "We Are Not the Enemy: Hate Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims, and Those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim after September 11"[27] is representative of the genre. Citing a "severe wave of backlash violence" involving "more than two thousand September 11-related backlash incidents" against Arabs and Muslims in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, the report claims such people were targeted "solely because they shared or were perceived as sharing the national background or religion of the hijackers and al-Qaeda members deemed responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."[28] Although the report goes on to claim that "comprehensive and reliable national statistics are not available," this study cites the readily-available official FBI statistics that indeed do show a spike from 28 to 481 total hate crimes against Muslims between the years 2000 and 2001; however, according to the FBI figures, even that high mark is exceeded by a factor of two for the typical annual total of hate crimes against Jews in America.[29]

The January 6, 2010 report, "Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim Americans," produced with funding from the Department of Justice, also cites an "increased anti-Muslim bias" in the years since the 9/11 attacks. This paper’s three authors, David Schanzer and Ebrahim Moosa of Duke University and Charles Kurzman from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, assert that Muslim-Americans bear the brunt of government counterterrorism initiatives, some of which they consider discriminatory.[30]

Then there is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which styles itself an organization "that challenges stereotypes of Islam and Muslims" and a "Washington-based Islamic advocacy group" dedicated to challenging "anti-Muslim discrimination nationwide."[31] The CAIR website includes an extensive section on "Islamophobia,"[32] a term reportedly coined by the Muslim Brotherhood front group, the International Islamic Institute of Thought (IIIT),[33] in an effort to find a concept useful in beating back critics of Islamic law (shariah) and jihad.[34]

CAIR traces the phenomenon of "Islamophobia" to writing by Samuel Huntington in the 1990s that posited a coming "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West. CAIR claims that "when 9/11 happened," those already prejudiced against Islam were influenced by "right wing outlets" and "pro-Israeli commentators such as Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Judith Miller, and Bernard Lewis" to amplify an atmosphere of "extreme prejudice, suspicion, and fear against Muslims."[35] Deftly sidestepping the historical record of decades of international terror attacks perpetrated by Muslim jihadis well before 9/11[36], in addition to centuries of shariah-inspired jihad that preceded the current one[37], CAIR’s Islamophobia page cites a number of surveys conducted in the years following 2001 that indicate Americans believe Islam encourages violence, does not teach respect for the beliefs of non-Muslims, or that mosques ought to be monitored by U.S. law enforcement officials. Americans’ entirely rational concerns about jihadist attacks and the encroachment of shariah on American society are then described not only as the font of "discrimination, exclusion, and violence" against Muslims (without citing any official statistics to substantiate the accusation), but the naturally-to-be-expected source of Muslims’ own "disillusionment, social disorder, and….irrational violence." [Emphasis added][38]

Slander, Blasphemy, and Insult to Islam in Shariah

It is imperative that western societies like ours understand the serious implications within Islamic law for accusations of insult to Islam, Islamic doctrine, or Muslims. Under shariah, the offense of slander is defined very differently than in U.S. law. According to the ‘Umdat al-Salik (or Reliance of the Traveller), a book of Islamic law that carries the imprimatur of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the global seat of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, Slander "means to mention anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike…"[39] Several pages later, a further explanation is provided: "A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim to relate or prevents disobedience."[40] Under Islamic law, truth is no defense against an accusation of slander and the offense is held to be a Hudud crime, one deserving the harshest punishment.

Even more serious than Slander under Islamic law is the offense of Blasphemy. The Muslim authorities hold Blasphemy to be insulting or abusing that which is held sacred in Islam. This can include anything from cursing Allah or the prophet Muhammad to irreverent behavior towards Islamic religious beliefs or customs. Even expressing opinions about Islam considered at variance with normative beliefs can be construed as blasphemy under this extremely subjective definition. Not only Muslims traditionally have been held accountable under the Islamic blasphemy laws, but also non-Muslims, especially dhimmis (conquered, subjugated People of the Book, i.e., Christians and Jews). "Reviling Muslims" or "Harming the Friends of Allah Most High" are considered serious sins, termed "Enormities".[41] Such offenses are described in Islamic law as those that entail either a threat of punishment in the hereafter, a prescribed Hadd punishment, or being accursed by Allah or the prophet Muhammad.[42]

"However, a general observation which should be made here is that in matters which pertain to the dogma of Islam, or those which are regulated by the direct authority of the Qur’an or Sunnah, criticism, either from Muslims or non-Muslims, will not be entertained, as personal or public opinion does not command authority in such matters. Islam is basically a religion of authority, and the values of good and evil, or rights and duties are not determined by reference to public opinion, or popular vote…" [Emphasis added][43]

It might be added that Dr. Kamali, who was a Professor of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at the International Islamic University Malaysia and also Dean of the International Institute of Islamic Thought & Civilization (ISTAC) from 1985 – 2007, and is currently Chairman and CEO of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies, Malaysia, is considered not only a leading international academic authority on Islam, but a "moderate Muslim." He was on the advisory group for Imam Feisal Rauf’s "Shariah Index Project" and is a listed expert at the purportedly moderate organization World Organization for Resource Development and Education (WORDE).[44]

The deadly intent of the shariah laws on Blasphemy and Slander repeatedly has been demonstrated in recent times: among examples which could be cited are the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against the novelist Salman Rushdie, the 2004 murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, and Anwar al-Awlaki’s 2010 fatwa against the Washington state journalist Molly Norris (who was forced into permanent hiding for jesting online about an "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day"). The consequences, therefore, of being accused by a Muslim of offending Islamic beliefs, customs, or laws should not be underestimated. The developing concept of "Islamophobia" obviously is heading in this direction.

Here is a final example. Given the centrality of this doctrine to Islam, the 21 February 2011 demand by CAIR for Fox News program host and former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, to apologize for "inaccurate and offensive" comments about Islam and to meet with Muslim leaders to discuss growing Islamophobia in American society"[45] needs to be taken very seriously. CAIR’s leadership knows exactly what such an accusation implies under Islamic law; it is to be hoped that the Governor does, too.

There is one more aspect of the Islamic laws on Slander that needs to be mentioned in this regard. Our jihadi enemy does not want the non-Muslim infidel world (and especially our national security leadership) to understand the true character and intentions of those shariah adherents who are dedicated to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."[46] Specifically, the enemy reserves the right to employ taqiyya (deceit and dissimulation) as well as the Islamic laws on obligatory lying[47] to keep such information from those whose knowledge of it could lead to effective defensive measures against shariah. Attempted enforcement of this legally sanctioned code of silence about the genuine nature and objectives of the jihadist enemy is one of the key usages of the Slander and Blasphemy laws in the west.[48]

"Islamophobia" and Defensive Jihad

To carry through the Islamic legal principles inherent in the Slander and Blasphemy laws to their logical end point, it is useful to refer to classical as well as modern pronouncements on the elements that Muslim scholars hold necessary to justify and declare defensive jihad. For, in fact, this justification is where accusations of "Islamophobia", religious "hate crimes," and insult to Islam plausibly lead. In fact, in numerous cases, hate crime violence or intimidating threats of violence against persons and property in response to perceived "blasphemy" has been a response in the last decade in Muslim-majority countries, and also in Canada, Europe, and the U.S. The examples in Muslim-majority countries are too numerous to list, but a sample of U.S. cases include the jihad threats against Molly Norris, creator of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day", the South Park cartoon producers, and publications that republished the Danish "Muhammed Cartoons."

"Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely." — (Q 8:39)

Turning to the modern Islamic scholars, Louay Safi is a Muslim author and scholar who has served at the top ranks of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in the U.S. He formerly was the Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)’s Leadership Development Center, Executive Director and Director of Research for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), editor of the Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, and President of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS) (1999-2003). ISNA, IIIT, and the AMSS all appear on the Muslim Brotherhood’s own list of "our organizations and the organizations of our friends."[50] Safi currently serves as Common Word Fellow at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. His credentials, in other words, would seem impeccable to speak to Islamic rulings on defensive warfare.

The slim 2001 paperback book, "Peace and the Limits of War," was authored by Safi and published by the IIIT in response to the post-9/11 surge in public awareness of Islam and jihad. While Safi attempts to distance himself from the classical Islamic scholars on the topic of mandatory offensive jihad, he has no such compunctions when it comes to "War in defense of Muslim individuals and property." He writes:

"When wrong is inflicted on a Muslim individual by a member, or members, of another political community….the Islamic state is obligated to make sure the individual, or his family, is compensated for his suffering, and that his rights are upheld…it suffices to say that the Islamic state should ensure that justice has been done to the wronged Muslim, even if that take a declaration of war…"[51]

Perceptions about the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims matter, especially when considered in the context of Islamic law (shariah), which criminalizes insults to Islam as "slander" or even "blasphemy."[52] A false belief, perpetuated by a few vocal groups, that deliberate religious bias crimes against Muslims are increasing regardless of the lack of support by hard factual data, is corrosive to community relationships at every level of American society, and a potential threat to First Amendment free speech rights and national security. Efforts at the international level, especially by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)[53], to define any questioning of Islamic doctrine as "hate speech" leading to "hate crimes", such as "Islamophobia" and as a "human rights violation" by way of official resolutions at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), directly create the premise for criminalization of free speech. Further, although non-binding at this time, such UNHRC resolutions conceivably could legitimize an eventual casus belli, by which an appropriate fatwa could declare justification for violent defensive jihad by the forces of Islam. As recently as March 7 2011, James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, formerly with the Democratic National Committee, wrote of critics of the Shariah law and Islamic terrorism in America, that:

If these ‘professional bigots" have provided the grist, the mill itself was run by the vast network of rightwing talk radio and TV shows and websites and prominent preachers, who have combined to amplify the anti-Muslim message nationwide. Their efforts have done real damage. They have tormented descent [sic] public servants, created protests that have shuttered legitimate institutions, fomented hate crimes and produced fear in the Muslim community.[54]

Conclusions

This data presented in this study demonstrate that common perceptions about the incidence of "hate crimes" in America that are directed at individuals or groups on the grounds of religious identification often mistakenly ascribe the majority of such offenses to anti-Muslim sentiment. To the contrary, the 2000-2009 FBI crime statistics data used in this study indicate that the majority of U.S. "hate crimes" in fact are perpetrated against Jews. The spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes following 9-11 did not last longer than nine weeks according to prior research. The most important conclusion may be that total religious bias crimes are few in a country of over 300 million persons. In fact, the U.S. is a model as a tolerant country, with a significantly low (and in some cases falling) number of hate crimes, in which most Muslim Americans are fully integrated and accepted, as well as economically and socially successful, fellow citizens.

The persistence, scope, and sophistication of the campaign to portray Muslims in America inaccurately, as making up the majority of "hate crime" victims, points to an organized effort whose potential implications derive from Islamic law (shariah). Insult towards Islam, Islamic doctrine, and individual Muslims, especially by non-Muslim infidels, can carry serious penalties under Shariah law. Further, because the "crimes" of insult, slander, and blasphemy are so subjectively defined in shariah, the doorway is wide open for those with an agenda of victimology to lay a foundation that not inconceivably could lead ultimately to a declaration of "defensive jihad" against persons, property or the broader community. "Homegrown" jihadist terrorism can find its motivation as part of the radicalization process in this heightened, and counter-factual, sense of victimization that justifies organized or "lone wolf" acts of jihad that are rationalized as defensive.

Charts & Data

Charts and data for this Occasional Paper are available in the PDF, or as Microsoft Excel files below:

[1] Center for Security Policy staff and interns contributed to the data entry, analysis, and verification.

[3] The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) calls itself a "Public service agency working for the civil rights of American Muslims". According to the counterterrorism think tank The Investigative Project, "MPAC’s public advocacy often involves defending accused terror financiers and opposing law enforcement efforts to root out terrorists and their enablers. In nearly every case, MPAC has responded to investigations by the FBI and the U.S. Treasury Department with complaints that authorities have not proven their allegations, and variations on the constant themes that enforcement actions unfairly single out Muslim groups and ‘bear strong signs of politicization.’ At the same time, MPAC has been equally diligent in defending individual terrorists uncovered by federal investigations." http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/181,accessed February 28, 2011.

[4] "Behind CAIR’s Hate Crimes Report," Daniel Skinner, The Weekly Standard, may 6, 2004, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/054aycfi.asp; "CAIR’s Hate Crime Nonsense," Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, May 18, 2005, http://www.danielpipes.org/2627/cairs-hate-crimes-nonsense; "Fudging the Numbers on Hate Crimes," Mike Pesca, NPR, may 23, 2005, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4662915; all accessed February 28, 2011.

[5] "CAIR Pushes Phony Charges of Anti-Muslim Hysteria, Hate Crimes," Investigative Project, April 4, 2008. http://www.steveemerson.com/2008/04/cair-pushes-phony-charges-of accessed February 28, 2011.

[6] The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program and its annual Crime in the United States reports are described online at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[7] 2009 is the most recent year for which full data are available. See the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2009 at http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/victims.html, accessed 12 February 2011.

[8] Simple Assaults by Victim by Religion for 2001 (Muslim 66, Jewish 45, Christian 3); Aggravated Assaults by Victim by Religion for 2001 (Muslim 27, Jewish 13, Christian 1)

[9] Neil Chakraborti, editor, Hate Crime: Concepts, policy, future directions, Willan Publishing, 2010.

[10] Kaplan, Jeffrey, "Islamophobia in America?: September 11 and Islamophobic Hate Crime," Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Accessed 20 February 2011 at http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a737727150

[11] Salaita, Steven George, "Beyond Orientalism and Islamophobia: 9/11, Anti-Arab Racism, and the Mythos of National Pride," CR: The New Centennial Review, Michigan State University Press, Volume 6, Number 2, Fall 2006, pp. 245-266. Accessed online 21 February 2011 at http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/new_centennial_review/v006/6.2salaita.html

[12] Journal of Hate Studies, Volume 8 (No. 1), 2010, http://journals.gonzaga.edu/index.php/johs/issue/archive accessed February 28, 2011. The Journal’s authors defend a wide spectrum of beliefs, ranging from a positive review for the anti-jihad movie "Obsession" (Vol 5, #1) to numerous articles from a more conventional perspedctive.

[13]Perry, Hate Crime: Concepts, Policy, Future Directions, p. 17

[14] Accessed online 21 February 2011 at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/trainguidedc99.pdf

[15] The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program and its annual Crime in the United States reports are described online at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[16] 28 U.S.C. § 534. See Appendix C for the full text of this legislation.

[17] Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines, p. 24, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/hcguidelinesdc99.pdf accessed February 28, 2011.

[18] This does not include the negligible number (19) of "crimes against society) from 2000-2009 for all three religious groups.

[19] "Self-described Religious Identification of Adult Population: 1990 – 2008," U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0075.pdf, accessed February 28, 2011.

[20] Ihsan Bagby, Ph.D., Paul M. Perl, Ph.D., Bryan T. Froehle, Ph.D., The Mosque in America: A National Portrait, Council on American Islamic Relations, April 26, 2001, p.6: "Estimates of a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America seem reasonable…"

[21] Abdul Malik Mujahid, "Muslims In America: Profile 2001," Soundvision, http://www.soundvision.com/info/yearinreview/2001/profile.asp , accessed February 28, 2011.

[22] "Background Information on Radicalization Hearings," Muslim Public Affairs Council, February 3, 2011. http://www.mpac.org/programs/government-relations/background-information-on-radicalization-hearings.php# accessed February 28, 2011.

[24] Table 77, Christian Church Adherents, 2000, and Jewish Population, 2009 – States. 2010 US Census. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0077.pdf.

[25] Muslims Widely Seen as Facing Discrimination. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Sept. 9, 2009. http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Muslims-Widely-Seen-As-Facing-Discrimination.aspx.

[26] "FBI Report Notes Rise in Hate Crimes," Deborah Tedford, NPR, November 23, 2009, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120715771 , accessed February 28, 2011.

[27] Available in PDF format and accessed 21 February 2011 at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2002/11/14/we-are-not-enemy

[28] "We Are Not the Enemy: Hate Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims, and Those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim after September 11," Human Rights Watch, NOVEMBER 2002 VOL. 14, NO. 6 (G) (p. 4).

[29] See Appendix D, "Hate Crime Trends: 2000-2007"

[30] Schanzer, David, Charles Kurzman, and Ebrahim Moosa, "Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans," January 6, 2010. Accessed online 21 February 2011 at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229868.pdf

[31] The official CAIR website is at http://www.cair.com/Home.aspx. CAIR’s foundational organization, The International Association for Palestine, was included on a list of organizations called "our organizations and the organizations of our friends" in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document called "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America."

[32] "Islamophobia," http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx accessed February 28 2011.

[34] Muhammad, Abdur-Rahman, "Whether or not Ground Zero mosque is built, U.S. Muslims have access to the American dream," The New York Daily News as cited by The Investigative Project on Terrorism, September 5, 2010. Accessed online 21 February 2010 at http://www.investigativeproject.org/2164/whether-or-not-ground-zero-mosque-is-built-us. Muhammad is a former member of the IIIT, whose by-line states that he "now works to combat Islamic extremism in the American Muslim community."

[35] CAIR "Islamophobia" page; accessed 21 February 2011 at http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx

[36] "List of Islamic Terror Attacks Against America Before 9/11," http://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/list-of-islamic-attacks-against-america/ , accessed February 28, 2011.

[37] Andrew Bostom and Ibn Warraq, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, Prometheus Books, 2008.

[38] "Islamophobia," http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx

[39] ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Section r2.0: Slander (p. 730).

[40] Ibid, Section r3.0 (p. 741).

[41] Ibid, Section p50.0 (Hurting or Reviling Muslims) and p51.0 (Harming the Friends of Allah Most High) (pp. 686-688.

[42] Ibid, The Author’s Introduction, Section p0.0 (pp. 651-2).

[43] Kamali, Mohammad Hashim, "Freedom of Expression in Islam," Islamic Text Society, 1997. From chapter IX. Freedom of Religion (Al-Hurriyyah al-Diniyyah). Accessed online 22 February 2011 at www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/…/freedom/kamali_freedom.doc

[44] "Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Biographical Highlights," http://worde.org/specialists/ProfessorMohammadHashimKamali.php accessed February 28, 2011.

[45] "Dissemblers At Council On American Islamic Relations – CAIR – Whip Up The Discredited Bogeyman Of Islamophobia," PipelineNews.org, February 21, 2011. Accessed 22 February 2011 at http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=cair2212011102.htm

[46] "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America," a 5/22/91 Muslim Brotherhood document entered into evidence in the 2007-2008 U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

[47] ‘Umdat al-Salik, Section r8.0, Lying (beginning on p. 744).

[48] "Shariah: The Threat to America," Center for Security Policy, October 2010 (pp. 103-106).

[49] See "The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani’s Siyar" by Majid Khadduri and Ibn Rushd’s magnum opus, "Bidayat al-Mudtahid wa-Nihayat al-Muqtasid" for their authoritative treatments of jihad.

[50] "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America," 1991. ISNA also appeared on the U.S. Department of Justice list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

[51] Safi, Louay M, "Peace and the Limits of War." International Institute of Islamic Thought, Herndon, VA.

[52] See "Slander (Ghiba)" in Section r2.0 of the ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (pg. 730). For a thorough discussion of Slander and Blasphemy in Islamic law, see also the Center for Security Policy study, "Shariah: The Threat to America," September 22, 2010. Available online at http://www.amazon.com/Shariah-America-Exercise-Competitive-Analysis/dp/098229476X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297556949&sr=1-1

[53] Organization of the Islamic Conference: http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html

[54] "Islamophobia can create radicalization," James Zogby, March 7, 2011, The Nation, http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/07-Mar-2011/Islamophobia-can-create-radicalisation/1 accessed March 8, 2011.