Faced with a persistent worldwide terror threat, the Department of Homeland Security may ban “religiously charged” Islamic terms such as “jihad” and “Shariah” from its lexicon to avoid offending Muslims.
Such a move would be counterproductive, according to former DHS officer Philip Haney.
“That would be like a doctor diagnosing an ailment that you have and never actually naming what the disease is or what the problem is,” Haney told WND in an interview. “That doesn’t do anyone any good, does it?”
Haney, who recounts his experiences as a DHS whistleblower in his new book “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad,” said the government does a disservice to the American people when it refuses to use the word “Shariahh.” He said it’s wrong to assume “Shariah” is a benign term with no bearing on the threats we face; in reality, Shariah is the primary gravitational force around which all Islamic terrorism revolves.
“That’s like saying, ‘We’re going to talk about the solar system, but we’re not going to discuss the sun,’” he explained. “Shariah law is the gravitational force of the global Islamic movement. Just like the sun keeps the planets in orbit, so all these different Islamic groups around the world orbit around the gravitational force of Shariah law.”
In a report released earlier this month, the Homeland Security Advisory Council recommended the DHS avoid certain “religiously charged” terms such as jihad, Shariah, takfir and umma. Jihad is Islamic holy war, Shariah is the authoritarian Islamic law Muslims wish to live under and impose on the world, and takfir and umma are Arabic terms that mean apostasy and Muslim community. The council also suggested using the term “American Muslim” instead of “Muslim American.”
The point of this, according to the report, is to avoid an “us versus them” mentality when discussing “violent extremism.” Haney, however, believes the issue goes beyond “us versus them.” He said Americans need to base their stance on the U.S. Constitution and reject the false narrative that they are Islamophobic simply because they wish to defend their Constitution from those who want to supplant it.
“Use courage and address it honestly: Is Shariah, Islamic law, compatible with the U.S. Constitution?” Haney challenged. “Yes or no? If it isn’t, then the debate needs to be framed in terms of how is it in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.”
Haney provided the answer: Shariah directly conflicts with Article VI of the Constitution, which mandates that the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land. Haney noted most of Shariah law is not religious but civil in nature, and many of those civil laws will come into conflict with existing U.S. civil laws.
“We need to base our discussions on the foundation of the Constitution,” Haney insisted. “If you do that, no one can legitimately criticize you for being a racist or a bigot or an Islamophobe, because what you’re doing is standing up for the U.S. Constitution.”
To accomplish its goal of preventing “violent extremists” from recruiting American youths, the Homeland Security Advisory Council report stated the feds must “prioritize attention on efforts to counter the recruitment of youth to violent ideologies across race, religion, ethnicity, location, socioeconomic levels, and gender.”
The implication seems to be that authorities should not single out Muslims. But if authorities assume Muslims are no more prone to commit terrorism than anyone else, according to Haney, the nation will have no chance of ever significantly reducing the terrorist threat. He said it is crucial to recognize Islamic terror attacks are just tactics that support the larger strategy of the global Islamic movement.
“What is the reason for all of these 28,000 attacks [in the world since 9/11] in the name of Allah?” the whistleblower asked rhetorically. “What is the real reason for them? They’re not random. They are motivated by one simple strategy, which is the implementation of Shariah law.”
Haney pointed out some Islamic groups use much softer tactics to achieve the same goal. For example, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America issues fatwas on its website advising American Muslims on whether they should do certain things that might conflict with Shariah law, such as serve in the U.S. military or work for the federal government.
“They will not compromise the integrity of Shariah law in order to assimilate into a culture that is not Islamic,” Haney warned. “They expect it to go the other way. This is the macro-level, existential battle that we’re in.”
In warning the DHS not to use divisive, “us and them” language, the advisory council said DHS must ensure their words are “properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists who argue that the West is at war with Islam.”
But keeping their words “properly calibrated” is a fool’s errand, according to Haney, because Islamic jihadists don’t care about the words used to describe them. Moreover, whether or not the West is at war with Islam doesn’t matter because Islam is at war with the West.
“They have already declared war on us multiple times,” Haney reasoned. “It’s called perpetual warfare, everlasting warfare, and it will continue until the day comes when Shariah is implemented everywhere in the world. And if everybody else on the face of the Earth submitted to Shariah law except for the United States, it wouldn’t end then.
“So it is an abrogation of duties to refuse to acknowledge the nature of the threat we face.”