In Part 2, I listed the first five evidences in my “Top 10 U.S. infiltrations of Shariah law.” If you haven’t read those, please do before you read the remaining below. Here in Part 3, I’ll explain the top five evidences.
But before I do, for those who haven’t read the former two articles, let me categorically restate that I’m neither an Islamaphobe nor a fear-monger. I welcome the plurality of religions in America and am a firm believer in the First Amendment. But just as our religious freedom is secured in the Bill of Rights, so is our freedom of speech to share even our religious concerns.
Five years ago, Donald Van Duyn, deputy assistant director of the Counterterrorism Division Federal Bureau of Investigation, warned us: “Islamic radicalization in the United States … does exist nationwide. Key to the success of stopping the spread of radicalization is identifying patterns and trends in the early stages.” Duyn was exactly right.
In the first five evidences in Part 2, we showed trends of Shariah in U.S. domestic violence, jurisprudence, commerce, and government access and legislation. As you read these next five points of evidence in my top 10, ask yourself: Are there any “patterns and trends” emerging here as well?
5) Then there is foreign Islamic extremists’ work within our country – something that the FBI has well documented as a vast network. Just one example of a bubble that surfaced from that underground network occurred during the raid and seizure of secret documents at the Annandale, Va., house of one extremist leader, Ismail Selim Elbarasse. As documented in P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry’s investigative expose, “Muslim Mafia,” one letter found there was written by Mohammed Akram Adlouni, a Muslim Brotherhood boss, which described the plans for U.S. takeover and replacing the Constitution with Shariah. Under the heading, “The role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America,” it states: “The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by the hands of believers, so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (Italics added.) Those are two powerful words: from within.
4) To win that internal war, extremists not only recruit adults but youth within the U.S. The Muslim American Society, or MAS, which the Chicago Tribune linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, is one more good example. Seven years ago, the 2004 Tribune report documented how, “Over the last 40 years, small groups of devout Muslim men have gathered in homes in U.S. cities to … address their ultimate goal, one so controversial that it is a key reason they have operated in secrecy: to create Muslim states overseas and, they hope, someday in America as well.” It went on to say, “Spending often is aimed at schools, teachers and children, the filings show. The group has conducted teacher training programs, issued curriculum guides and established youth centers. … Part of the Chicago chapter’s Web site is devoted to teens. It includes reading materials that say Muslims have a duty to help form Islamic governments worldwide and should be prepared to take up arms to do so. One passage states that ‘until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful.’ Another one says that Western secularism and materialism are evil and that Muslims should ‘pursue this evil force to its own lands’ and ‘invade its Western heartland.'”
Again, P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry document in “Muslim Mafia” that Islamic “revolution ideology” is taught to teens through MAS’s tarbiya department, which is the department for indoctrinating youth and new Muslims. The nine-month Muslim syllabus and course admonishes followers to “wage war” until the U.S. is “wiped out” and only Shariah law remains in the country. These are not simple studies of the Quran but revolutionary tactics to overthrow the systems in the U.S. Similarly, Gaubatz and Sperry document how the Muslim Students Association, or MSA, is a catalyst behind Shariah creeping on college campuses through “strategic challenge of administrators, salaried Imams, campus-wide observance of Islamic holidays, special religious facilities, separate food and housing and athletic services, etc.”
3) A key for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and other extremist groups to engage in their “grand jihad … from within” is capitalizing on the proliferation of our politically correct culture, especially the fads of condemning the Christian right (Christianity) while condoning Islamic fundamentalism (Islam).
We have turned into a nation of offensive putty in which conviction and free speech is outlawed by hate crimes and repressed through labels of bigotry, hate-monger, fear-monger and Islamophobia. Political correctness is the cultural Petri dish in which Shariah is accepted and developed. Again, in “Muslim Mafia,” former Pentagon official Frank Gaffney, now head of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, explains it this way: The Muslim Brotherhood’s “object is to establish, initially, a separate society for Muslims with that of their host nations in which non-Muslims are the majority. This is accomplished by insinuating preferential arrangements for Muslims – religious accommodations, their own legal code and courts (that is, Shariah), territorial ‘no-go’ zones, and assorted political benefits. Initially, these seem modest and unthreatening. Separate rules governing dress codes. Accommodations in public spaces for the practice of a single religion. Latitude to deny service or handling of certain products in deference to religious sensibilities. Organized labor contracts that substitute Muslim holy days for Labor Day, etc. … Inevitably, over time if not in relatively short order, a parallel society is in place that is utterly at odds with the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, its precepts, freedoms, and institutions.”
2) Our politically correct culture has also ushered in a host of politically correct politicians and judges who are now legislating and advocating pro-Islamic culture and practice. The New York Times even published a multiple-page report on how the “White House quietly courts Muslims in the U.S.” In Part 1, I mentioned President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, who advocated Shariah on a British television show. Another example is, in February 2010, President Obama also appointed Rashad Hussain to serve as his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, an inter-governmental body of 56 Muslim countries, which also forms an official body represented in the United Nations. (Where is the same treatment from this White House for countries that uphold Judeo-Christian values to unite and have the same treatment that allows them to form an official body represented in the U.N.? Or any other religion for that matter? There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark!)
1) There is no greater proponent of the partnership of America and Islam (and therefore Shariah) than President Obama himself. I’m not saying he is a Muslim but a Muslim advocate and apologist. He said it himself. He declared his explicit mission in Cairo in June 2009 for the whole world to hear, when he vowed to establish “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world. … That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Have you ever heard of a president talk about “partnership between America and [the religion of] Islam”? And a presidential responsibility to “fight” for the Islamic religion? Or are we naïve enough to believe that Obama’s “fight” will never entail an advocacy for Shariah law when it permeates Islam?
I’m certain that many Islamic extremists are well-pleased with the progress they are making in America. They are not only following the instruction of foreign radicals but American ones as well. Even Saul Alinsky would be proud of jihadists, about whom he could have been writing these words from his “Rules for Radicals” (Page 6): “Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.”