Tag Archives: Understanding the Shariah Threat Doctrine

The “Khorasan Group”, New Name, Old Threat

Recent media coverage has been bombarded by revelations of a “new terror threat“, “more dangerous than ISIS”, the Khorasan Group.

Khorasan refers to the historical area under the Islamic Caliphate that corresponds to Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan and the subcontinent, and the Khorasan Group, according to intelligence officials speaking to the media, consists of a relatively small (between fifty and a hundred) group of veteran Al Qaeda fighters from the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. These fighters are said to include a number of highly skilled bomb makers and other operatives, led by Muhsin al-Fadhli, a native Kuwaiti, and long time Al Qaeda insider, who specializes in financing and facilitation. Jihadist social media is hinting that Al-Fadhli may have been killed in the first round of U.S. bombing.

Khorasan Group’s mission, supposedly, has been to find jihadists with western passports who have travelled to Syria, train them, and reinsert them into the West to conduct spectacular attacks of the kind that Al Qaeda is famous for.

Khorasan Group operates in and among Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, and there’s been lively debate in the counterterrorism community over whether its really worthwhile distinguishing between Jabhat al-Nusra and Khorasan group at all. This is significant because Jabhat al-Nusra, despite being Al Qaeda, is deeply intertwined with the Syrian rebels at-large, and they are widely supported by these rebels, including those that the Obama strategy calls for arming and training to fight ISIS. For their part, Jabhat al Nusra hasn’t made the distinction, claiming they were the recipient of U.S. bombings.

It’s entirely plausible that intelligence suggested that this Khorasan group was preparing an imminent attack, and even if they weren’t, they are definitely enemies of America and a legitimate target.

But the extra hype about this specific group, and separating them out as somehow different or more threatening than Jabhat al Nusra, and Al Qaeda proper, has more to do with attempting to limit the negative reaction from rebels within Syria, and to distract Americans from the reality that in Syria there really are few good guys, with a possible exception of the Kurdish forces, who aren’t really receiving support. That strategy has already failed, with multiple Syrian rebel groups complaining about the strikes against Jabhat al Nusra, including one group expected to be the core of the force the U.S. intends to train to send against ISIS.

There has been an attempt to try to separate out elements of Al Qaeda, into Core, and affiliates, and in the case of the Khorasan group, small units within affiliates. Or for that matter to disassociate ISIS from Al Qaeda, as ISIS being “too brutal”, when the reality is that ISIS hasn’t engaged in any tactic that Al Qaeda didn’t institute first.

This is a misguided attempt to convince people that what we face is a series of minor groups, and that the enemy who attacked us on 9/11 is broken, and/or on the run. The reality is we face an overarching enemy, a Global Islamic Movement-which is how they identify themselves- operating in accordance with a knowable strategic doctrine that we are not addressing.

That doctrine is Shariah law. It is the same law that ISIS is instituting in its territory, and the same one that Jabhat al Nusra and several of the other Syrian groups would institute in Syria if they prove successful in defeating Assad.

Our enemy knows that you can not defeat an opponent you do not name. They do not say that their war is with the U.S. Army,  the 75th Ranger Regiment, or the 5th Special Forces Group. They say plainly and openly, that their war is with America, and the allies of America, and more importantly, that it is an ideological war, based on a conflict between belief systems which are irreconcilable.

Until we are prepared to discuss the conflict in ideological terms, we will forever be playing “whack-a-mole” with a never ending series of “new” threats.

ISIS’s New Threat is Anything But New

In a new release on Sunday from chief propagandist of the Islamic State (or Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham), Shaykh Abū Muhammad al-‘Adnānī ash-Shāmī called for Muslims everywhere to kill Westerners in whatever manner possible:

So O muwahhid wherever you may be, hinder those who want to harm your brothers and state  as much as you can. The best thing you can do is to strive to your best and kill any disbeliever, whether he be French, American, or from any of their allies.
{O you who have believed, take your precaution and [either] go forth in companies or go forth
all together} [An-Nisā’: 71].
If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him. Do not lack. Do not be contemptible. Let your slogan be, “May I not be saved if the cross worshipper and taghūt (ruler ruling by manmade laws) patron survives.”

If you are unable to do so, then burn his home, car, or business. Or destroy his crops.

This (admittedly brutal) call for the murder of Americans, and our allies, by any means necessary, has received substantial press, as does almost every statement issued by ISIS, thanks in part to their mastery of social media, and comes on the back of a plot by ISIS supporters to kidnap and behead random civilians, which was recently broken up by Australian security forces. Other online chatter from ISIS included discussion of targeting U.S. military personnel at their homes.

The reality, however is that there is nothing new of substance in this call for individual Muslims to undertake jihad with or without prior contact with ISIS or any other Jihadist terrorist entity. The same strategy has been employed  by Al Qaeda proper for several years, following the publication of their online terrorist manual, “the Lone Mujahid’s pocket book” and updated with monthly editions of Inspire Magazine, which contains instructions ranging from how to conduct arson to building pressure cooker explosives of the same kind used by the Boston marathon bombers.  The murderers of British Army drummer Lee Rigby cited some of the same koranic verses given as evidence by Adnani in their May 2013 beheading attack. The Center for Security Policy produced a lecture discussing the phenomenon in April 2013, where CSP Fellow and Shariah law specialist, Stephen Coughlin pointed out that during World War I, the last-sitting Ottoman Caliph issued an almost identical call for “individual jihad.”  As far back as 2006, Dr. Daniel Pipes coined the phrase “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” to refer to such incidents of terrorism from Muslims otherwise absent established terrorist connections, following the attempt by a Muslim man to run over fellow college students with a rented jeep  (presaging Adnani’s “run him over with your car” command).

Unfortunately the United States continues to be ill-prepared to address such a threat. As noted by veteran journalist Bill Gertz last week, the FBI continues to view jihadist terror solely through the matrix of “international” terrorism:

The FBI’s most recent national threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats, despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.

Instead, the internal FBI intelligence report concluded in its 2013 assessment published this month that the threat to U.S. internal security from extremists is limited to attacks and activities by eight types of domestic extremist movements—none motivated by radical Islam.

Far from innovative, the call by ISIS for believers to exercise the obligation, imposed by shariah, to target and kill “nonbelievers”, individually if necessary, is well within the established doctrines of jihad. And while it ought to go without saying that not all Muslims personally hold to such views, the call by Adnani for individual jihad remains doctrinally accurate, and legally permissible. Rather than attempting to disguise jihad as “workplace violence” or mental illness, only a strategy which accurately addresses the ideological threat posed by shariah will be effective in stopping ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or indeed the “lone” jihadist in the future.

 

Media Confused as Boko Haram Claims to Join the Islamic State

In a video released over the weekend, AbuBakr Shekaku, head of the Nigerian jihadist group known as Boko Haram, appears to have declared allegiance to the Islamic State, proclaiming lands currently under Boko Haram control in the province of Borno part of the “Caliphate.”

Despite this, much of the Western media seemed confused about the nature of a Caliphate and what it means. From the AFP report:

In a July video, Shekau voiced support for the leader of the Islamic State and the Levant (Isil) militants Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who in late June declared himself “the caliph” and “leader of Muslims everywhere”. But there was no indication from Shekau in the latest video that he was associating himself with Baghdadi, whose Sunni Muslim fighters have taken over parts of Iraq and Syria. As such, it was not clear if Shekau was declaring himself to be a part of Baghdadi’s call or if he was referring to a separate Nigerian caliphate.

The position of Caliph is one with purported dominion over the entire “ummah” the total collective of the Muslim faithful.There can only be one legitimate Caliph, and one Caliphate, as Shekaku is no doubt aware. Given that the  laudatory language Boko Haram has in the past offered towards the IS Caliphate, the most likely conclusion would be that Boko Haram either has joined, or intends to join the Islamic State of Al-Baghdadi. It would be incongruous for Shekaku to praise IS, and then negate its primary achievement by denying it legitimacy by claiming he was the true Caliph.

It’s worth noting that while this confusion over whether or not Boko Haram was declaring for the IS Caliphate or declaring its own Caliphate was echoed in all the western reporting which followed from the AFP report, the same confusion is not at all present in an OnIslam.net report, which draws from the same AFP wire.  The OnIslam.net report also ignores the extraneous historical detail of the Sokoto caliphate, a 19th century Nigerian Islamic state which laid claim to the Caliphate title. This is a classic example of how the disinclination to study Islamic law on matters leads to injecting unnecessary complexity into the analysis of events.

If it is the case that Boko Haram has acknowledged the territory it controls as part of the IS Caliphate, this is a major development for the Islamic State. The claim of authority by its “Caliph” Al-Baghdadi has largely been rejected by other Jihadist groups, with only minor exceptions. Yet being recognized as receiving the bay’at (oath) of notable scholars and jihadi emirs who hold actual territory is central to Al Baghdadi’s claim of legitimacy. Of course whether either group is capable of meeting the perceived obligation of such an oath, sharing and exchanging resources, personnel etc, is an entirely other matter.

 

 

Jihadis and Fellow Travelers Want a USG Re-Education Program

In a chilling 14 August 2014 letter to Lisa O. Monaco, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism advisor at the National Security Council (NSC), reminiscent of the Red Chinese and Soviet gulags, a group of 75 signatories urged the Obama administration to “implement a mandatory retraining program for all federal, state, and local law enforcement officers” who have been exposed to “anti-Muslim” training. 

Former FBI counter-terrorism Special Agent, former head of the FBI SWAT team and former combat Marine John Guandolo– a member of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) Team B IIand Founder of Understanding the Threat— was singled out for particular criticism, as was FBI analyst William Gawthrop.

Among the signatories to the letter are CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations, the U.S. HAMAS wing), the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC, which includes Helping Hand for Relief & Development USA, the charitable wing of Muslim Brotherhood front group, Islamic Circle of North America), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), whose Executive Committee includes the likes of Siraj Wahhaj (named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Ihsan Bagby (member of several U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations including the Fiqh Council of North America, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)). To round out the Islamic representation, there are two Shi’ite affiliates, the Imam Hussain Islamic Center andUniversal Muslim Association of America (UMAA, which seems to have only a Facebook presence online).

Joining them in signing the letter was a gaggle of fellow travelers drawn from across a span of leftist organizations. Perhaps it’s all the ghastly publicity from the Middle East that’s been drawing attention to how Islamic Law (shariah) really looks when it’s implemented in all its barbaric fulsomeness. Or maybe the signatories just decided it was time for the old Red-Green alliance to reprise the glory days of its original efforts to remove training about how Islamic terrorism takes its inspiration from Islamic doctrine, when a 19 October 2011 letter to Monaco’s predecessor, John Brennan, succeeded in launching a U.S. government-wide purgeof such curriculum. Then again, it’s possible somebody pulled out a dog-eared copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to review some tips on how to neutralize Guandolo’s stunningly effective law enforcement training about Islam, shariah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Red-Green coalition obviously has realized (likely with dawning horror) that even if Guandolo weren’t still out there reaching sheriffs’ departments across the country, the residual effects of earlier pre-purge training still inform countless law enforcement counterterrorism programs. And the thought that such training lately must only be reinforced by the never-ending stream of atrocities out of the Middle East may have been just enough to tip the group over into serious panic. Hence the letter to Ms. Monaco to urge a little brainwashing, just to make sure nobody somehow connects any of those awful beheadings and crucifixions with Islam (see Qur’anic verses 8:12 and 5:32-33 for details).

First came the physical purge of the training materials. Now must follow the psychological purge of all those minds that absorbed that training. Stalin and Mao—never mind Qutb and Khomeini—would be so proud.

Too Brutal-The Death of James Wright Foley

The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS), which claims the mantle of Islamic caliphate, has recent released a video purporting to show the graphic beheading of American journalist James Wright Foley. His killer, a knife-wielding black masked jihadist speaks with a British accent while threatening the U.S., including threatening death to a man who is identified as American journalist Steven Sotloff.

Even while outrage courses through social media-and rightfully so- many have seemingly  forgetting that there is nothing new or unique about ISIS’ barbarism. American journalist  Daniel Pearl was beheaded by Al Qaeda #3 leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2002. KSM remains in Guantanamo Bay unpunished, despite having confessed. American businessman Nick Berg was beheaded on video tape by the head of AL Qaeda in Iraq Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2004.

Many are warning that ISIS’ horrifying jihad will eventually return home when the Western-raised, Western-educated Jihadists who fill its ranks return to their homelands to continue their religious war. But here too there is nothing unique. Terrorist beheading reached Western shores well before there was an ISIS.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston bombers is believed responsible for slitting the throats of three Boston men, Brendan Mess, Erik Weissman and Raphael Teken, in an apartment on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo beheaded British military drummer Lee Rigby in 2013.

The death of James Wright Foley is another horrifying tragedy in the long war directed at the West by self-declared jihadists. Whether they go by the name ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or Hamas, the end goal to impose shariah law -by force and terror if necessary- remains unchanged.

Until we approach the conflict in those terms, defining the enemy by the words he uses for himself, and not imposing our own false narratives upon his motivations, we will never be able to come to grips with the true depth of the threat.

It’s time for respectable journalists to stop saying that ISIS is “Too brutal for Al Qaeda.” It’s a false distinction. Instead start boning up on Shariah law, and  see for yourself  what our enemies actually believe about  jihad, the treatment of prisoners, sex slavery, and beheadings.

Flynn is Right, Ideology is The Problem

LT. General Michael Flynn, outgoing head of the Defense Intelligence Agency recently told an audience at the Aspen Institute that the ideology of Al Qaeda was “expanding,” and that Al Qaeda was not “on the run” as the Obama Administration had repeatedly insisted during the 2012 election. Flynn said, “It’s not on the run, and that ideology is actually, it’s sadly, it feels like it’s exponentially growing,”

Flynn went on to point out that “the core” of Al Qaeda was not in fact a geographic designation, but instead a belief, “We use the term ‘core al Qaeda,’ and I have been going against these guys for a long time,” The Free Beacon reports Flynn as saying, “The core is the core belief that these individuals have.”

While Flynn does not go so far as to name the ideology which Al Qaeda acts in furtherance of (namely Shariah), he is clear that one can not solely counter an ideological threat kinetically.

Under Flynn, the DIA has been one of the few intelligence agencies to hold the line against the Obama Administration’s popular, if delusional, reimagining of the threat.  As Eli Lake noted in a Daily Beast article discussing the connections between Al Qaeda and Boko Haram:

The dispute inside the intelligence community falls along familiar lines about al Qaeda. The White House has emphasized the distinctions between al Qaeda’s core and its affiliates and other aspiring jihadists, who the White House sees as operating almost entirely independent of the central group.

However, another faction inside the U.S. intelligence community—one that comprises the current leadership of the Defense Intelligence Agency and others working in the military—see al Qaeda as a flatter organization that coordinates between nodes and operates through consensus in the model of an Islamic Shura council.

The idea that DIA should need to wage an rearguard action around a concept as basic as the fact that Al Qaeda is organized along shariah-prescribed lines, is itself an example of how badly we have failed to understand the enemy’s stated threat doctrine.

While Flynn does not say so, the reason the ideology of Al Qaeda has expanded is we have failed to directly combat it. We have failed in combating the ideology, as the direct result of influence operations waged against U.S. policy making by affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has resulted in the purge of U.S. trainers who understood the enemy doctrine, leaving U.S policymakers, and law enforcement and intelligence officials unprepared.

One quibble however. LTG Flynn warns that Hamas ought not to be destroyed, as there is a risk that the Islamist groups that would replace it would some how be “worse.” There is not any substantial difference in ideological doctrine between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham. they are all based upon the Shariah. Saying that Hamas must survive because ISIS is worse is the same kind of mistaken thinking that permitted some to argue that we could work with the Muslim Brotherhood to serve as a bulwark against Al Qaeda. There is no major doctrinal disagreement between Hamas and Al Qaeda, or ISIS. Hamas hailed Osama bin Laden as a “holy warrior” when he was killed by U.S. forces. The Muslim Brotherhood also recognized Bin Laden’s role as a legitimate jihadist.   The godfather of both Al Qaeda and Hamas was Muslim Brother and Islamic Jurist named  Abdullah Azzam.

But even this mistaken view of Hamas is itself evidence thats proves Flynn’s point. Without understanding the nature of the enemy’s threat doctrine and its primary thinkers (Like Azzam), we will not be successful in defeating it.

Don’t Call It A Caliphate, Yet: ISIS May Run Afoul of Islamic Law

The news over the weekend that the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) had declared as Caliph of the universal Muslim Ummah its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has shaken the Middle East (and the wider Muslim world).

In classic ISIS form, the jihadist insurgent army issued a communiqué, in multiple languages, including English, to explain their decision to make the announcement that Al-Baghdadi was now Caliph Ibrahim, and ISIS was now simply, “The Islamic State.”

According to the communiqué, Al-Baghdadi was invested with the position of Caliph through the oath of loyalty sworn to him by ISIS’s people of authority (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd). The communiqué notes:

…the Islamic State – represented by ahlul-hall-wal-‘aqd (its people of authority), consisting of its senior figures, leaders, and the shura council – resolved to announce the establishment of the Islamic khilafah, the appointment of a khalifah for the Muslims, and the pledge of allegiance to the shaykh (sheikh), the mujahid, the scholar who practices what he preaches, the worshipper, the leader, the warrior, the reviver, descendent from the family of the Prophet, the slave of Allah, Ibrahim Ibn ‘Awwad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Muhammad al-Badri al-Hashimi al-Husayni al-Qurashi by lineage, as-Samurra’i by birth and upbringing, al-Baghdadi by residence and scholarship. And he has accepted the bayat (pledge of allegiance). Thus, he is the imam and khalifah for the Muslims everywhere.

Compare to Minhaj al-talibin written by Imam Nawawi, a shafi’i jurist of the 13th century, as cited in the Reliance of the Traveller (Book O. Justice, O.25.4):

The Caliphate may be legally effected by an oath of fealty, which, according to the soundest positions, is the oath of those with discretionary power to enact or dissolve a pact (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd) of the scholars, leaders and notables able to attend.

Other legal options for investiture as a Caliph would be appointment as a successor by the previous Caliph, or to seize the position of Caliph by force of arms, but both would seem to require a pre-existing caliph from whom to take power.

So the question of whether, under Islamic law as understood, Al-Baghdadi may be legitimately recognized as Caliph rests on whether or not the ISIS “people of authority” meet the legitimate definition for that position.

While there is a range of opinion of exactly what constitutes the “ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd,” for this purpose, the commentary on Minhaj al-talibin included in Reliance notes that while the ruling is expected to be made by all people of authority able to attend, there is no such thing as a “quorum” and the presence or lack of any particular number of individuals is irrelevant.

A commentary by Muhammed Shirbini Khatib explains,

“…if the discretionary power to enact or dissolve a pact exists in a single individual, who is obeyed, his oath of fealty is sufficient.”

It’s unclear whether ISIS has at its disposal such a worthy dignitary. The quality of scholars supporting ISIS has always been a problem for the otherwise meteoric rise of the group once referred to as Al Qaeda in Iraq. While eminent Jihadi scholar Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi wasonce a major supporter of founder Al-Zarqawi, the most notable scholars, including al-Maqdisi, sided against ISIS, in its dispute with Al Qaeda emir Ayman Al Zawahiri. If the “people of authority” are deemed to be those scholars most esteemed within the jihadi world, then ISIS’s appointment of a Caliphate lacks authenticity and legal backing. And that does not even consider the wider world of Shariah authorities, whether operating from within the Muslim Brotherhood’s orbit such as Yusuf Al Qaradawi’s International Union of Muslim Scholars (which has formally denounced the declaration), or in traditional venues like Al-Azhar University.

Despite a dearth of scholarship, ISIS can count on the fact that nothing succeeds like success. Two things are necessary for ISIS to win it’s gambit in declaring the Caliphate reestablished. The first is that it must continue to win. Continued territorial expansion fulfills its argument that ISIS is the implementer of the Shariah law over the largest and most historically relevant real estate.

Second, ISIS must succeed in winning the oath of loyalty of key elements of the global jihad. While ISIS has succeeded in gaining popular support among online jihadi communities, individual young mujahids are of no real consequence, except in as much as they serve as recruits to further conquest. What ISIS needs, ideologically, is the support of the emirs of major jihadi groups or the support of prominent scholars. So far this has not happened, although individual members have supported the call. Victory on the battlefield may lead to such oaths, as other jihadi groups look to take advantage of the boost in recruiting and fundraising that ISIS is receiving.

Still, it would be strategically useful to avoid unwittingly consecrating Al-Baghdadi’s claim to the position of Caliph while that issue remains open to (possibly bloody) debate in jihadist circles. ISIS is exceedingly conscious of media and particularly western media, and carefully formulates its message in terms most likely to terrorize, and appeal to media coverage (the logic of distributing both mass executions and crucifixion videos, and a jihad fighters holding cats Twitter account for example). They respond quickly to exploit opportunities that seem to affirm their caliphate status, as when ISIS supporters began to retweet a statement by DHS senior advisor Mohammed Elibiary that the Caliphate was “inevitable,” following ISIS’ success in Iraq. ISIS has capitalized on media coverage about their exploits, and claim in their communiqué that even the west recognizes their new status,

“They [referring to those Muslim groups with whom ISIS disputes] never recognized the Islamic State to begin with, although America, Britain and France acknowledge its existence.”

Given that ISIS is looking for legitimacy where it can find it, let’s not present ISIS’ declaration of Caliphate as a fait accompli. Instead to the degree the facts permit it, it would be advantageous to continue to point out that even within the legal context of shariah, ISIS is on shaky ground, that they are a relative newcomer, that in the grand scheme of the Islamic world they hold limited territory, and that they do not have the respect of key scholars or jihadi emirs. At the same time, we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that these things may not change, especially if ISIS continues its winning streak. But for the meantime, ISIS is not a Caliphate… yet.

Originally appeared at Breitbart.com 

Islamic Values vs. Judeo-Christian Values

My dear friend Ali Sina mentioned in his most recent article that a Muslim professor, Hossein Askari, believes that Western nations lead the World in “Islamic values” and that most Muslim nations practice the least Islamic values. I have heard such nonsense before from some Muslims, some of whom were my relatives. I will never forget the strange look on my Christian American husband’s face when an elderly Muslim man visiting from Egypt told him: “You are such a fine young man, you have the character of a true Muslim.”

It is not unusual for Muslims to describe non-Muslims whom they perceive as good as having “Islamic values.” Many Christians in Egypt have to suffer hearing comments by Muslims such as: “You are so good, you must convert to Islam, you have the character of a true Muslim.”

How can educated Muslims professors make ridiculous claims like that Ireland “leads the world in Islamic values as Muslim states lag”? Islamic logic, in that case, says, if Irish people have noses, eyes, arms and legs like Muslims then they must be Muslim. This twisted logic wants to hide the truth: that many Muslims no longer want to live under Islamic values, but since that is considered apostasy in Islam, the only way out is to claim life in the land of the Great Satan is really equal to living the true Islamic life.

Muslims are trained to adjust reality to Islamic propaganda; thus everything good must come from Islam and everything bad comes from the Kafir non-believer. So it is Islamic logic to believe that if Christians are good then they must be Muslim, but they just don’t know it yet.

The Muslim dilemma about the West gets more complicated when over 70% of Muslim youth are desperately trying to leave the Muslim world to immigrate to Western nations. Many Muslims are stunned, disappointing and filled with envy when they compare infidel and Islamic nations and discover that infidels have achieved what Muslims could only dream of. Such an awakening by Muslims flies against the Islamic propaganda that has indoctrinated generations into believing that Islam is the solution.

So if Islam is the solution, how come Muslims are happier in the West? Simple: Muslims discovered what the West failed to understand about their own values; According to Muslims, it is Islamic values — so “Allahu Akbar” anyway.

Islam has trained the Islamic mind to solve any contradictions with the goal of making sure that Islam looks good at any cost. In other words, reality has to adjust to Islamic teachings. Muslims must never admit that Western success is attributed to the Judeo-Christian value system. That is why Muslim professors on American college campuses claim that Western cultural success is due to Islamic and not Biblical values, and that the US Constitution is Sharia compliant.

This is nothing new for Islam, Mohammed himself claimed that Christianity and Judaism, which preceded Islam by thousands of years, are in fact Islam, but have just been corrupted. Mohammed started by linking himself to the Abrahamic line in order to get legitimacy and after that he discredited the Jews and Christians as apes, pigs and enemies of Allah. Mohammed taught his followers that Abraham, Jesus, Moses etc., all are in fact Muslims and have Islamic values.

Because of Islamic Sharia’s severe and humiliating punishments, Muslims had to mold their thinking to never venture outside the Islamic mental box. Muslims who are brave enough to think critically for themselves will easily find Islamic values, summed up in Sharia, to be the antithesis of Biblical values.

Mr. Askari, like many devout Muslims, refuses to judge Islam by its fruits that are exploding all around the world. Instead of graciously giving credit where it is due — to the fruits of the Bible — he chose to slap Western culture in the face by shamelessly teaching that Western nations’ success is due to Islamic values. Amazing, that sounds exactly like Mohammed.

This line of thought fits perfectly with the jihadists who are hell bent on violently converting the West to Islam. But the smart stealth jihadist Muslims choose to leave violent jihad to others, and would rather tell the American people that everything good is Islamic and that the corrupted values of the Bible could not have resulted in the fruits of Western success.

Askari probably feels that the poor Western citizens just don’t know what Islam already knows, but are unaware that the West is practicing Islamic values more than Muslims themselves.

Most Muslims are unaware that it is Muslim culture that heavily borrowed from the Bible. Muslims often say “don’t go to bed angry” but are unaware that this is a Biblical value and not a Quranic value. They say “Salamu Alaykum” and respond by saying “Alaykum El Salam” but are unaware that they have borrowed this from Jews’ “Shalom Aleikhem” and the response “Aleikhem Shalom.” They say that Islam is a religion of peace when in fact Islam advocates war and relentlessly urges its followers to die in war while killing the enemies of their Allah.

The so called “moderate Muslims” who advocate that the US Constitution is Sharia compliant, are dangerous because they are stealth jihadists who have no loyalty to the US Constitution and what America is all about. Their loyalty is to the Islamic agenda of the establishment of the Khalifate. The religion of Mohammed has produced millions of people who think like Askari who are constantly struggling with a severe case of ethnocentrism.

Western nations so far have based their way of life on Judeo-Christian values of the Bible; a book outlawed by Islam under penalty of death. It is time for American college campuses to get rid of Muslim teachers who under the guise of research are advocating Islam 101.