The Threat Doctrine that Cries ‘Blasphemy’

By Janet Levy, AMERICAN THINKER

For the past 25 years, the Muslim Brotherhood in North America has been pursuing a comprehensive strategy to control what non-Muslims know about Islam. This multi-pronged threat doctrine seeks to prohibit open discussion and to abridge free speech. It also seeks to curtail education and training given to the military, law enforcement, intelligence, and government about the true nature of Islam. Overall, the Brotherhood’s agenda seeks to block a fair and critical appraisal of Islamic doctrine, pursue a stealth civilizational jihad against the West, and, ultimately, render us impotent to defend ourselves.

A review of the Brotherhood’s progress in this effort over the past two decades presents a chilling picture of the extent to which our safety and way of life have been compromised. It serves as a wake-up call for action now.

Background

The General Strategic Plan for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, written and adopted in 1987, established the grand mission for Muslims as a mandatory civilizational jihad against the West, led and directed by the Brotherhood. The stated goal was to establish Islam as “victorious over all other religions.” Specific steps were laid out in the document to bring about a global Islamic state under sharia, or Islamic doctrine.

The Brotherhood’s strategic plan is buttressed by the Islamic doctrine of al wala wa al bara, which requires Muslims to feel enmity toward non-Muslims (upheld by taqiyya, or deception) and exhibit loyalty to the umma, or the Muslim community. It embodies the stealth principles of Sun Tzu’s ancient Chinese war doctrine: “[s]ubduing an enemy without force is best” and “[a]ll warfare is based on deception.”
Stopping military and government training
To control what is known about Islam and to block education and training to law enforcement and government, the Muslim Brotherhood has developed well-placed inside-influence operators who wield considerable power with high-level officials and can set policy.
For example, in 2008, Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and top expert on Islamic doctrine, was cashiered as a government contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. Coughlin had lectured at the Navy War College and the Marine Corp War College, as well as briefed members of Congress, senior staff at the Department of Defense, government officials, and law enforcement and intelligence officers. His departure was an orchestrated campaign undertaken by an Egyptian-American Muslim, Hesham Islam, who, after 20 years in the U.S. Navy, had become a senior adviser and admired confidant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

Islam was welcomed into England’s inner circle despite his close ties to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas terrorist funding trial. Islam regularly attended ISNA events and hosted the organization at the Pentagon. From his position as a well-placed insider, Islam was able to use his relationship with the deputy secretary to label Coughlin “extreme” and “a Christian zealot with a poison pen,” even though the veracity and scholarship of Coughlin’s lectures were deemed impeccable throughout his chain of command. Eventually, Islam succeeded in having Coughlin removed, effectively silencing him and removing the benefit of Coughlin’s expertise for military personnel.
A more recent instance of blocking military and government officials from learning the truth about Islamic doctrine was the removal from training responsibilities of Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley from the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA. Although Dooley’s course materials on radical Islam had been previously approved, they were recast as “offensive to Muslims” and critical of Islam after complaints came to the White House from various Islamic influence groups.

The complaining groups included two unindicted co-conspirators in the Hamas funding trial — ISNA, again, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Dooley was publicly excoriated, fired as an instructor, and given a negative evaluation, placing the future of his military career in jeopardy. Finally, all materials critical of Islam were scrubbed from military training, even though much of the training materials referenced Islamic texts themselves, as well as commentary from highly esteemed Muslim clerics.

In this way, for lack of adequate training and education, our military officers and other government employees are ultimately rendered impotent to fight the enemy, unaware of the threat to national security posed by Islam.

Invoking “Islamophobia” and “Blasphemy”

Another key tactic cited in the Brotherhood’s strategic plan is to prevent infidels from learning the truth about Islam by controlling how Islamic doctrine is discussed and the language used to describe Islam and Muslims. This method is effectively aided by the West’s culture of multiculturalism, in which charges of prejudice and racism — like “Islamophobia” — trump all offenses.

The all too convenient charge of “Islamophobia” has been proclaimed when non-Muslims have critically evaluated the tenets of Islam, denounced terrorist activities, called attention to inappropriate or threatening behavior, denied requests for accommodations beyond what is customary and normal, depicted Mohammed in unflattering ways, or even quoted directly from Islamic scriptures. This dissembling or disingenuous focus on “Islamophobia,” when none exists in the U.S. (according to an FBI study on religious hate crimes), obfuscates the real danger of jihad and Islamic supremacism. It lulls the general populace and renders it helpless to defend itself against the real Islamic threat.
A parallel move, used when actual Islamic terrorist actions have been taken, is to shift the blame for those actions onto non-Muslims. Thus, those who have expressed negative views of Islam and Muslims and who have cast suspicions about Muslims’ activities are deemed culpable for Islamic terrorism. Further, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA issue veiled threats that the targeting and misrepresentation of Muslims will lead to distrust within Muslim communities and foster an unwillingness to cooperate with authorities to strengthen homeland security.
A related diversionary tactic is to blame jihadist acts on social or economic problems such as poverty, lack of opportunity, and bias against Muslims. In effect, the argument goes, Islamic terrorism is being manufactured by Islamophobia or poverty and has nothing to do with Islam. The West is blamed for its insensitivity to Islam, and the need for formalized measures or legislation is advanced to ensure that infidels aren’t harmed further by violent reactions when Muslims legitimately feel disrespected. Legislation such as the Istanbul Process, the collection of anti-blasphemy laws passed by the U.N., is presented as a necessary option under the guise of condemning insults to religion in general. Yet the real intent is to eliminate any criticism of Islam, as is made obvious by the regular and public condemnation of Christians and Jews by Muslims who populate the internet with videos calling for jihad against infidels.

Advancing false theories

Another arrow in the quiver of Muslim tactics is to seize control of the education of military and government employees about Islamic doctrine. Muslim Brotherhood organizations do this by arguing that non-Muslims are unequipped to teach Islam and that it must properly be taught by Muslims. As a result, CAIR has provided Muslim sensitivity training for the FBI, U.S. Armed Forces, state and local law enforcement agencies, and others, all of it under the guise of fostering a “better relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim community.” Yet at the same time, the Brotherhood’s New York chapter distributed posters declaring, “Build a Wall of Resistance, Don’t Talk to the F.B.I.” and advised Muslims that they are the victims of anti-Muslim bias.

Incredibly, Muslim Brotherhood operatives, such as Louay Safi, have even taught the tenets of Islam to American troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, including a course on the “Theology of Islam” at Fort Hood in Texas. Following Major Nidal Hasan’s 2009 attack on Fort Hood in which he murdered 13 people, Safi blamed the violent outburst on the “demonization of marginalized groups,” meaning Muslims.

Another Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohammed Magid, president of ISNA, was appointed in 2011 by Obama to serve at the Department of Homeland Security. His responsibilities have included the training and advising of personnel affiliated with the FBI and other government agencies. Magid has characterized any criticism of Islam as “religious bigotry and hate” and been responsible for purging government-training materials critical of Islam.

Monitoring news reports and media portrayals

Managing the image of Muslims portrayed in the media is another aspect of the Islamic inside-influence operation to prevent accurate knowledge of the enemy. Threats of violence and boycotts and the brandishing of financial clout have been used against the media to alter the message about Islam, mute any potential criticism or negative inference, and blunt attempts to educate the public about a very real threat.

Media spin management is yet another aspect of the civilizational jihad that keeps non-Muslims in the dark about Islamic terrorist activities. The spin is managed by CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. For example, shortly after 9/11, Muslim leaders aggressively importuned the producers of the TV show 24, which portrayed terrorists as Muslims. They pressured Hollywood to change the villains from Muslims to Neo-Nazis in the 2002 film The Sum of All Fears.

During the 2005 Muslim riots in France, Prince Alwaleed Talal, the second-largest shareholder of Fox News, had photo captions changed from “Muslim riots” to “civil riots.” On-air personalities and guests have been labeled Islamophobic when they present accurate portrayals of Islamic terrorist activities and Islamic doctrine.

Muslim Brotherhood operatives and their non-Muslim enablers have insisted that jihadist acts be described in ordinary criminal terms without any reference to the tenets of Islam. This serves to isolate jihadists and acts of jihad as a misunderstanding of the true nature of Islam when it is, in actuality, an integral part of Islamic doctrine.

When the bizarre and threatening post-9/11 antics of six imams on a U.S. Airways flight raised the suspicion of fellow travelers, CAIR successfully sued the airline and threatened to sue alert citizens for voicing their concerns. Since that time, CAIR has honed its skillful attacks to silence critics of Muslims and Islam from all forms of dialogue and media.

Portraying Islam as “a religion of peace”

After 9/11, George W. Bush sent the tone for the national discussion on Islam by going to the Islamic Center of Washington six days later to reassure Americans. He declared in his stocking feet that the attack had nothing to do with Islam because Islam is a “religion of peace.”

Meanwhile, the language used to discuss Islam was sanitized in less than a decade following the deadliest attack on American soil. The 9/11 Commission Report released in 2004 mentioned “Islam” 322 times and “jihad” 126 times. By 2009, the Department of Homeland Security excluded accurate descriptions of the enemy and its actions, substituting “man-caused disasters” for “terrorist attacks” and “overseas contingency operations” for the Global War on Terror. The words “jihad,” “Islam,” and “Muslim Brotherhood” were eliminated from the FBI lexicon, as well as from the National Intelligence Strategy of the U.S.

Obama’s focus on nondescript “violent extremism” or “man-caused disasters” rather than “Islamic terrorism” has been applauded by U.S.-based Islamic advocacy groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council, whose leadership has justified the existence of Hezb’allah and Hamas, CAIR and ISNA. These groups insist, despite doctrinal evidence to the contrary and statements by jihadists, that their attacks are motivated by Islamic jihad, that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

Results: ignorance and silence

The shutting down of military and government training, the close monitoring of news reports and media portrayals, the advancing of false theories, the use of free speech-curtailing anti-blasphemy legislation, and the denial of jihadist terrorism as an integral part of Islam — “a religion of peace” — are all tactics used in the service of keeping infidels totally in the dark about the true nature of the civilizational jihad well in place to defeat them.

As apocryphal as crying wolf, false cries of blasphemy serve a sinister purpose — to shut down any and all productive dialogue on the true nature of the threat faced by the West. The goal is to ensure ignorance and induce complacency so that the supremacist, misogynist, discriminatory, and totalitarian nature of Islam is not known and Muslims can triumph.

A fitting quote by an intelligence analyst best sums up the situation:

It is important to understand how effective this operation has been. I know of no one in the U.S. government who can speak out publicly or privately against Islamists, radical Islamists or militant Islamists. The operations targeting the National Defense University, the Joint Forces Staff College and the FBI has effectively censored everyone.

You will NOT find any documentation censoring anyone and all the academic institutions will claim, and back up in writing, academic freedom, but, unfortunately, the message has already been sent – do not say anything unless it has been approved by CAIR, MPAC and the other Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

It’s evident that the Muslim Brotherhood’s General Strategic Plan for North America has achieved great success within the past few decades. Ultimately, the control of all knowledge of Islam and the civilizational jihad operation facilitates the attack against the West and effectively prevents any counter to Islamic expansionism.

We are well on our way to being subdued by an enemy that has cleverly silenced us.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/the_threat_doctrine_that_cries_blasphemy.html#ixzz2BG0uodNq