A Muslim-American woman asks question at presidential debate Sunday Oct 2016

A Muslim-American woman asks a question at the second presidential debate of 2016

Donald Trump, perhaps the most anti-politically correct presidential candidate in modern U.S. history, may have missed a golden opportunity at Sunday’s debate to blow the whistle on one of the left’s favorite PC tactics.

The question, asked by a self-described American-Muslim woman, was about “Islamophobia” in America.

“There are 3.3 million Muslims in the United States and I’m one of them,” said the woman, who sported purple hair unencumbered by a hijab or Muslim headscarf. “You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations. But with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over?”

Hillary Clinton, as the establishment’s candidate, gave the establishment answer. She responded by saying “We are not at war with Islam,” a religion that in the past she has said “has nothing to do with terrorism.” This has been the official position of the U.S. government since George Bush stated it after the 9/11 attacks.

Mrs. Clinton continued to defend Islam as an all-American religion saying, “We’ve had Muslims in America since George Washington,” a claim that borders on the absurd if it was meant to imply that Muslims fought in the Revolutionary War, as pointed out in tweets by immigration watchdog Mark Krikorian and Islam expert Diana West.

Trump’s answer to the question was less pandering to Islam but did he go far enough?

‘You’re right about Islamophobia’

“Well, you’re right about Islamophobia and that’s a shame,” Trump responded, before veering off to focus on how Muslims need to report suspicious activity when they see it, such as in San Bernardino last year when neighbors saw bomb-making equipment being delivered to the jihadist’s home and said nothing. He also blasted Clinton for refusing to “name” the enemy, which he said is “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Watch video clip of Muslim-American woman asking Trump and Clinton what they would do about “Islamophobia.”

Trump could have used the question to expose the myth of Islamophobia, a term that has become part of the American political vernacular over the last five years following repeated usage by groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, says a leading authority on Islamic terror. CAIR is the Muslim civil rights organization whose own sordid history includes ties to Hamas and nearly a dozen of its former leaders being charged or convicted of terrorist-related crimes.

Philip Haney, a retired Homeland Security officer who developed a screening system for Muslim immigrants that potentially would have snared the San Bernardino jihadists and saved the lives of 14 Americans had his data not been deleted by his superiors, said Trump should have seized on the opportunity to educate Americans about the nature of this vague term – Islamophobia – that is so easily tossed out to dismiss critics of Islamic texts.

“He reacted by trying not to sound Islamophobic, he didn’t want to risk being labeled as an Islamophobe himself, right there on a national stage. And so he proceeded to acknowledge that islamophobia exists, and that it was ‘a shame,'” said Haney, co-author of the bestseller “See Something Say Nothing.”

So, what should Trump have said?

“It would have been nice if he would have said something like, ‘what exactly is the definition of Islamophobia?'” Haney told WND. “We hear this term a lot but has anyone actually defined it?

“That’s the problem with Islamophobia is it hasn’t been defined,” he added. “It’s used as a hammer but nobody really knows what it is.

“That’s the problem with the left is they always use terms that are subjective, the definitions change constantly, but we’re never told what they mean.”

The way the term has been used by CAIR and others, an Islamophobe is anyone who voices concerns about Shariah law within the American culture.

“That’s seen as islamophobia,” Haney said.

Various imams across the United States are promoting Islamic law by following the legal rulings, called “fatwas,” of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, he said. This is a mainstream Islamic school of jurisprudence that would not be considered “radical” by most Muslim leaders.

In Arabic the AMJA is called the Majama Fukaha al-Shariah Amrikia, which means, literally, “the assembly of lawyers promoting Shariah in America,” Haney said.

“It’s right there in front of us. Yet Muslim groups, the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center fight at the local level against anti-Shariah movements,” he said. These movement often include cities or counties passing a version of the American Law for American Courts laws.

“The reason the ACLU and others oppose this is they don’t believe Muslims have any intention of implementing Shariah law,” Haney said. “This organization, AMJA, is the unifying gravitational force of Islam in America.”

The AMJA issues fatwas on the challenges Muslims face in America, “such as how do you live in a non-Islamic country and still live by Shariah law?” Haney said.

“This is the organization that helps them on questions like, should you join the military, or should you be a member of law enforcement?” Haney explains. “The answers they have given are based on the Islamic doctrine of ‘loyalty and enmity’ meaning as long as you have enmity in your heart toward non-Islamic institutions and authority, then you can be part of them.”

The classic example of this would be Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army officer stationed in Fort Hood, Texas, who in 2009 fatally shot 13 of his fellow soldiers and injured 30 others. This does not mean every Muslim in the U.S. Army is a ticking time bomb, but those who are Shariah-adherent certainly carry risk, says Haney.

“And it also proves Donald Trump is right,” Haney said. “Islam does hate us.”

Trump famously said during a CNN interview in March “I think Islam hates us.”

The ancient doctrine of al-wal’a wa al-bara’, or “loyalty and enmity” is well grounded in Islamic texts, well sponsored by Islamic authorities, and well manifested throughout Islamic history and contemporary affairs, writes Raymond Ibrahim, a Middle East and Islam specialist whose books include “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians” (2013) and “The Al Qaeda Reader” (2007).

“Muslims must hate and oppose everyone who is not Muslim, including family members,” he writes in a recent blog post.

Quran 60:4 is the cornerstone verse of this doctrine and speaks for itself: “You [Muslims] have a good example in Abraham and those who followed him, for they said to their people, ‘We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone'” (Quran 60:4, emphasis added).

Ibrahim points out that Quran 58:22 praises Muslims who fight and kill their own non-Muslim family members:

“You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred.”

The dark goal of promoting ‘Islamophobia’

The end result of branding American citizens concerned about Sharia as the “other” or “less than” is that the Muslim community as represented by CAIR seems to be saying that criticism of Shariah is Islamophobic and anyone who is an Islamophobe does not deserve the protection of the First Amendment under the U.S. Constitution.

That’s a dangerous and sinister ploy, Haney said. It actually imposes one of the main tenets of Shariah law, which is that criticism of Islam or its prophet are off limits. Free speech ends at the first mention of Muhammad, Allah and Islam. No similar standard exists or is purported to exist with regard to Christianity, Judaism or any other religion in America. Criticism of Jesus and Christianity in the public square is not only tolerated but welcomed in pop culture.

This would seem to indicate that at least one tenet of Sharia, criticism of Islam, supersedes the U.S. Constitution. And a large portion of the non-Muslim society in America, mainly on the political left, seems to concede this ground to CAIR and its primary backer, the Muslim Brotherhood, Haney said.

“Is it Islamophobic to have concerns about the possible promotion of Shariah within American society? Is that Islamophobic?” Haney asks. “Because if it is that means that the U.S. Constitution will not provide its protection if we want to stand up against Islamic law because we will be branded as Islamophobes so you will be exempted from the protections of the First Amendment. Article 6 of the Constitution, which is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, also no longer applies.”

‘Fitna’ by any other name is still fitna

The whole concept of “Islamophobia” is but a re-imagination of the Islamic doctrine of “fitna.”

Fitna is an Arabic term for “persecution” or “oppression” of the Islamic world by non-Muslims.

Muhammad’s recommended solution for how Muslims should deal with a fitna in a Muslim society is described in Quran 8:39, which states:

“And fight them until persecution [fitna] is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.”

The phrase “if they cease” is a reference to the dhimmis who agree to become second-class citizens subservient to Islam, essentially a conquered people, Haney said.

“This pact is called a dhimma and the people who live under it are the dhimmis. The dhimma is a pact of protection and says, basically, ‘If you do everything we tell you, we won’t kill you,’” Haney said. “However, if any of the terms of the contract are broken, then the people of Islam have the right to do anything that is authorized by Shariah law.”

That includes beheading, severing of limbs and crucifixion, according to Quran 5:33.

Heading toward ‘voluntary dhimmitude’

While most “conquering” throughout history has been done by military means, Islam will be happy to implement Shariah peacefully if Americans, Europeans or Canadians are willing to let them walk in and demand to be treated as superior, Haney said.

In military conquests, Quran 5:31-33 provides specific detail on what Muslims are allowed to do to a rebellious non-Muslim who refuses to live in submission to Islam.

“It includes crucifixion, cutting off of limbs, things you see ISIS doing and things Islamic armies have done throughout history because it goes back to the Quran and to Shariah law,” Haney said.

Read how the Kansas City Board of Education recently submitted to Islam by agreeing to an anti-free speech resolution that ban on criticism of Islam.

The Quranic teaching to “fight them until fitna is no more” carries an ominous warning, Haney said.

“The word for persecution is fitna, so the very presence of these rebellious people in an Islamic culture is a fitna in itself,” Haney said. “That is why Muslims feel they are the victims wherever they go because when the non-majority culture or the minority refuses to submit to Islam they, meaning the Muslims, are oppressed.

“Fitna is fundamental to Islam. Everything in the world that opposes the implementation of Shariah law is a fitna, and therefore by the Quran they are authorized to eliminate that fitna, fight against it, until all people are for Allah. Everywhere they go, therefore, any opposition they find, they are authorized to wage violence against it.”

Haney encountered this intolerance for Islamic criticism in his job as a security screener within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He had created a database that would help detect violent jihadists, but not only was his data erased, he found himself the target of an internal investigation for violating the civil rights and civil liberties of Muslims. He was eventually cleared and retired last year in good standing.

“That’s why this whole civil rights and civil liberties idea will ultimately fail, because it doesn’t matter how many concessions or how many outreach programs we do for the Muslims, as long as that is short of implementing Shariah law, it will never be enough and according to the Quran the appropriate response is to fight against it,” Haney said.

‘Islamophobia’ equals ‘fitna’

Haney said the Muslim Brotherhood and its American affiliates, such as CAIR, have cleverly substituted the word “Islamophobia” for fitna.

“Anyone who does not submit, or says anything derogatory about Islam is an Islamophobe. But that is just fitna,” he said. “So what the North American Muslim Brotherhood has done is just substitute ‘islamophobia’ for fitna.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.