America: The Civilizational Jihad

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honor, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue, and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme.

—Osama bin Laden1

According to Muslim teachings, God first revealed His word in the Holy Qur’an to the prophet Muhammad, during the month of Ramadan. That word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements.

—President George W. Bush2

America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

—President Barack Obama3

Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam … Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

—Omar Ahmad, CAIR co-founder4

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya’ to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya’, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust).

—Qur’an 5:51

It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.

—Hasan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder5

Before September 11, 2001 it was hard to get Americans to take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously. Although that has changed, the so-called War on Terror launched by the Bush administration has mostly been an outward-facing approach that neglects to address the true threat. In fact, terrorism is a technique used by our enemy. Since 9/11, we have devoted tremendous time, money, and effort to fighting a technique rather than an enemy. The question which American officials have been answering wrongly in this time is simple: who is the enemy?

A clue to the answer was made public in a 2007 trial against an Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The HLF was accused of providing money and resources to a foreign terrorist organization, money laundering, and engaging in financial transactions that threatened national security. During the trial a number of documents were presented as evidence, including one called “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

Formulated in 1987 but not formally written down until 1991, the Memorandum is the work of the American branch of a radical Islamist organization called the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The Memorandum outlines the purpose of the MB in the United States and Canada. That goal is nothing less than the destruction of our civilization and our way of life from within so that Islam will become dominant and sharia law established as the law of the land. This work is variously described as a “grand Jihad” or a “civilizational-Jihad process.” Unlike the 9/11 attacks, however, this jihad is not one of violent attacks but of gradual Islamization. Muslims are urged to “settle” in North America and adopt a superficially tolerant and benign attitude. Then, once they have obtained public acceptance, Muslims are directed to garner political and social power in order to effect a radical transformation of society.6

The approach advocated by the Memorandum is similar to a Communist technique known as “boring from within.” The key difference, however, is that Communism was an ideology based on empirical data. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demonstrated failures of central economic planning, the ideology has largely collapsed as a political force. The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, on the other hand, is based on fanatical dogma. It is not subject to falsification or disproof. It does not require money or political power to exert influence over people—yet when it acquires these things it becomes a serious threat indeed.

What has been missed since 9/11 is that the terror attacks and the civilizational jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood are both children of the same ideology. Instead of recognizing this, American leaders have resorted to the mantra that Islam was only tangentially related to the 9/11 atrocities. Some—usually those on the political Left—have even used the attacks as motivation for acts of penance or appeasement toward the Islamic world. Faced with uncertainty on one hand and self-abasement on the other, people in America and the Western world remain unaware, even 13 years later, of the extent to which militant Islam has infiltrated their countries and institutions—and unaware, too, of the threat this infiltration poses.

While it is true that many American Muslims are peaceful people who mean their country and their neighbors no harm, this is by no means true of all. For decades, militant Islamic groups have used the cover provided by their well-meaning brothers to further the cause of civilizational jihad as outlined in the Memorandum. Using America as a safe haven, they have planned, funded, and orchestrated jihadist attacks against non-Muslims. Many put on a public face of moderation and religious pluralism while privately pursuing goals radically opposed to American ideals and principles. Too often, critics who dare to call out this hypocrisy are silenced by charges of racism and bigotry. In the name of high- minded tolerance and understanding, public officials have gone along with the hypocrisy; in so doing, they provide cover to the bitterest enemies our nation has ever faced.

This is not a tale inspired by bigotry or paranoia—it is well-documented and long- established fact.

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

The story begins with the group which authored the “Explanatory Memorandum,” the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB is not like the stereotypical terrorist groups one thinks of when jihadists or radical Islamists are mentioned. Their difference with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden could be called a difference of tactics rather than beliefs. Like bin Laden, the MB wants to see the whole world submit to Islam and the rule of sharia law. But the MB prefers to pursue this goal—in the Western world, anyway—by different means than mass murder.

The MB was founded in 1928 by an Egyptian named Hassan al-Banna. He was fueled by a vision of a restored caliphate, a political and religious union of Muslims that would continue the work of Islamizing the globe. Although his aims were radical, al-Banna was no hothead. The approach he favored for restoring Islam to its “rightful” place involved the gradual replacement of secular forms of government with Muslims who secretly favored Islamic political dominion.7

Because al-Banna’s MB movement favors gradual takeover and careful preparation, some Western observers ignorantly or fancifully imagine that the group is anti-jihadist or moderate. In fact, the MB has no qualms about engaging in terrorism whenever they believe it will further their aims. It only opposes terrorism when it “reverses gains hard won by other jihad strategies: propaganda, education, indoctrination, communication, ingratiation, and infiltration.”8 When necessary, however, the MB must be ready to kill as a religious duty, as al-Banna made clear:

The Quran has commanded people to love death more than life. Unless the philosophy of the Quran replaces the love of life which has consumed Muslims, they will reach naught. Victory can only come with the mastery of the art of death.9

Following in the footsteps of their leader, MB members learned to conceal their hostility to western culture and western democracy. When members of the Brotherhood began to arrive in North America in significant numbers in the 1960s, they were already well practiced in presenting themselves in acceptable and respectable forms. Former FBI Special Agent George Sadler, who spent years investigating the Brotherhood, writes:

The Muslim Brotherhood has figured that they can be successful promoting radical change from within the U.S. while supporting the armed struggle outside the U.S., primarily through fundraising and closely associated Palestinian terrorist organizations.10

Sadler’s words are confirmed by the “Explanatory Memorandum.” The document reaffirms the MB’s commitment to the “global Islamic movement” which it says was originally begun by Muhammad himself and then revitalized by Banna. It also emphasizes the importance of either creating Islamic organizations or subverting existing ones to its own ends wherever possible.11

The authors of a powerful 2004 exposé of the MB in the Chicago Tribune noted that the organization’s approach in America “reflected a long-standing Brotherhood belief: First you change the person, then the family, then the community, then the nation.”12 Thanks to organizational prowess and Saudi financial support, the MB have gained control over hundreds of American mosques and established dozens of new facilities and institutions of their own. For example, the Bridgeview Mosque in the Chicago suburbs originally catered to a community of moderate Palestinian Muslims on the South Side. Members of a Brotherhood-affiliated organization took over the leadership, got the deed to the property turned over to a front group, and transformed the community mosque into a hotbed of jihadist preaching.13

One of the best-known creations of the MB is the Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyah, the Islamic Resistance Movement, which readers will know by its more popular name, “Hamas.” Hamas was founded in 1987 by leaders of the MB in Gaza with the ultimate goal of annihilating Israel and replacing it with an Islamic state.14 In its 1988 charter, Hamas claims that Jews are responsible for everything from the French Revolution to freemasonry to both of the World Wars. America’s branch of the MB has worked tirelessly in support of this movement, its hateful ideology, and its genocidal plans from the very beginning.

Three MB organizations in the U.S. have been particularly prominent in working to fund and support Hamas. In the words of one researcher, Hamas “has developed the most sophisticated American infrastructure.”15 The Holy Land Foundation mentioned at the beginning of this chapter was one of those organizations. Its connection to Hamas and terrorism was demonstrated in federal court.16 A particularly influential MB member in this line of work was Mousa Abu Marzook, who came to the U.S. in 1982 as a doctoral student.17 Marzook helped raise funds for Hamas in America, and then in 1989 became its effective leader following the arrest of its previous leader. Marzook was made head of the organization’s Political Bureau when it was formed in 1991 and proceeded to raise and distribute funds for terror operations from his home in suburban Virginia. He even directed the recruiting and training of new Hamas operatives.18

The American MB response to the 1993 Oslo Agreement between Israel and Palestine provides an excellent look at the organization. Most Americans at the time were immensely pleased by the agreement, thinking peace between Arabs and Israelis was finally at hand. At the same time, leaders of two MB organizations were gathering in Philadelphia to discuss their own take on the situation. Thanks to an FBI wiretap which was later declassified, we have full access to their plotting.19

The wiretap reveals that MB leaders in America viewed Arafat as a traitor, calling him a “pure Jew” for making peace with the enemy. They were concerned that the agreement undermined and delegitimized acts of terrorism against Israel.20 Faced with the prospect of becoming sidelined, the MB leaders discussed ways to aid Hamas in its jihadist campaign in order to undermine both the agreement and the new Palestinian Authority. Leaders agreed that they would maintain public respectability on this issue by emphasizing “humanitarian suffering, refugees’ rights and [other] issues which the Americans will agree with you on.” Another leader explicitly said, “[we will] send two messages; one to the Americans and one to the Muslims.”21 American jihadists had to walk a fine line between supporting Hamas on the one hand while being able to publicly deny any accusations of involvement in terrorism on the other. The leaders found it increasingly difficult to manage this balancing act, so the idea of creating a new organization to carry out the double game of jihad with a respectable face was floated. This idea was the seed of what would become the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).22

THE COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS

Officially incorporated in 1994, CAIR presents itself publicly as an advocate for the Muslim community and its civil liberties. In reality, the organization has been named several times as a co-conspirator in the support of known terrorist organizations.23 In one high-profile case, leaders of the HLF acting as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood were convicted in 2008 on multiple counts of money laundering and providing funds, goods, and services to a known terrorist group. CAIR was named, along with several Muslim charity groups, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. When CAIR sued to have its status as co-conspirator legally removed, the U.S. government successfully argued that CAIR’s conspiracy “was confirmed by testimony and documentary evidence admitted at trial.”24

CAIR has just managed to remain on the edge of legal respectability, but many individual officials within the organization have not been so lucky. Federal and local authorities have characterized the group’s offices “as a virtual turnstile for terrorists and their supporters.”25 For example, Randall Royer was a top official with CAIR from 1997 until 2001, during which time he traveled to Pakistan to train at the same terrorist camp which produced the Mumbai attacks. From his home in Northern Virginia Royer was the head of a cell of Virginia-based jihadists plotting a chemical and explosive weapons attack in the Washington, D.C. area. Royer’s plot was exposed, and in 2003 he was sentenced to 20 years in prison.26 Also in 2003, CAIR’s director of community affairs was sent to prison for bank and visa fraud in connection with an al-Qaeda affiliate in North America.27 In 2005, the founding director of CAIR’s Texas chapter was convicted of using his business to launder money for Hamas.28 The founder and first president of CAIR, Omar Ahmad, made no secret of his intentions: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant … The Quran should be the highest authority in America.”29

Despite such connections, CAIR has been effective in extracting money from various organizations by raising absurd claims of victimhood. One of the most financially lucrative cases was the Nike incident from the late 1990s. CAIR charged that a new design for the Nike Air bore an offensive resemblance to the word ‘Allah’. Faced with negative press, Nike apologized, recalled the offending shoe, and offered corporate donations to mosques hand- picked by CAIR.30

CAIR has also raised the specter of alleged hate crimes perpetrated against Muslims. Yet even in the wake of 9/11, the number of violent incidents against Muslims has never exceeded the number of similar incidents reported against Jews. In 2011, for instance, there were 157 “hate crime” incidents targeting Muslims compared to 771 targeting Jews.31 There are no crime statistics supporting a wave of “Islamophobia” in America, so CAIR manufactures its own. Readers may be surprised to learn that CAIR classified the arrest of Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and the trial of the so-called Blind Sheikh for plotting mass murder in New York City as hate crimes.32 Even criticism of jihadist activity is a hate crime as far as CAIR is concerned.33

Any journalist attempting to reveal negative details about Islam in America has been subjected to smears. Stephen Emerson was one of the first to receive such treatment after his 1994 investigative documentary, Jihad in America. The documentary, which aired on PBS, received a number of prestigious accolades. CAIR was at the forefront of the Muslim groups which replied with a “brutal campaign of vilification and defamation,” calling Emerson an anti-Arab racist. These attacks were successful, and Emerson was blacklisted by NPR.34

Writing for US News and World Report, journalist John Leo characterized CAIR’s approach this way:

Why do CAIR and other groups push the “bias” button so hard? Well, the victim stance works. It attracts press attention and has made the “bias against Muslims” article a staple of big-city dailies. It encourages Muslims to feel angry and non- Muslims to feel guilty. It raises a great deal of money, garners a lot of TV time, and gets the attention of Congress. And by pre-positioning all future criticism as bias,

it tends to intimidate or silence even the most sensible critics.35
Muslims who do not go along with the ideology of the MB are not spared the same treatment. CAIR founder Omar Ahmed was clear on this: “As for the organizations which want to dissent from the Islamic position for personal interests or out of fear … We must pressure them and embarrass them by various means until they adhere to our position or, at least, remain neutral.”36 When the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, denounced fundamentalist Islam, he too was subjected to

accusations that he had insulted all Muslims. He even received death threats.37
CAIR’s approach has not only undermined law-enforcement efforts against terrorism, it has resulted in a widespread waste of resources. By repeatedly responding to terror- fighting actions with accusations of discrimination, racism, defamation, and racial- profiling, CAIR has been allowed to actively shape the investigation process. According to investigators, CAIR has been invited by both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct sensitivity training seminars for agents—“a dangerous disinformation campaign designed to desensitize police to the threat from Islamic terrorism.”38 In short, CAIR manufactures an “Islamaphobia” crisis, then sets itself up as an indispensable bridge

between Muslims and the government.
The Justice Department banned formal contact with CAIR after the 2008 case which

showed its conspiracy with a terror organization. Yet the FBI has continued its policy of outreach to the group under the illusion that this is somehow beneficial to the FBI. Despite evidence that this collaboration is actually beneficial to the terrorists the FBI is purportedly trying to combat, political correctness has kept the agency on the same suicidal track.39

In fact, the FBI has a new policy in place that allows agents to associate even with groups that support violence if those groups are also involved in legitimate activity. Imagine the FBI coordinating with Al Capone’s mob on the grounds that Capone was still donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity! From its association with groups like CAIR, the FBI purged former training materials which were deemed prejudiced against Muslims. One journalist remarked on the policy shift:

The net result of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach has not just been the empowerment of extremists at the expense of marginalizing authentic moderates. Now the Obama administration has institutionalized these relationships where the very extremists they have empowered and embraced are now dictating inherently dangerous public policy.40

Words such as ‘jihad’ have been purposefully removed from government pronouncements. As a result, Major Nidal Hasan’s massacre of fellow soldiers at Fort Hood has been classified not as an act of jihad but as a case of “workplace violence.”41

INFILTRATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In 1988, an informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network revealed the organization’s six-phase plan to get inside government and university organizations.42 Through front groups such as the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), the MB has managed to spread its influence into a number of universities.43 This influence comes in a variety of forms. At George Mason University, the IIIT provided $1.5 million to endow a professorship in Islamic Studies. At Hartford Seminary, it has provided $1 million to establish a chair in Islamic Chaplaincy. At other schools, such as SUNY Binghamton, the IIIT sponsors lectures. Shenandoah University signed an agreement to designate an instructor (presumably one the IIIT approves of) to co-teach a course in Islamic civilization.44

It’s not just the Muslim Brotherhood, either. The Alavi Foundation, an alleged component of Iran’s propaganda machine, has also invested heavily in North American academia. The group proudly lists 30 academic institutions in the United States and Canada which it has provided funding for. Meanwhile, the Foundation has been accused of funneling money to an Iranian bank linked to that country’s nuclear program. The president of the Foundation has already pled guilty to destroying evidence before it could be submitted to a grand jury. In the words of a journalist covering the case, “The Foundation’s purpose is not only to launder money for the regime, but to become subtly engaged in the ideological war. U.S. officials told the Washington Post that the Foundation ‘promotes Tehran’s views on world affairs.’”45

Perhaps the single largest influence on university campuses is Saudi Wahhabism. Over the past 30 years, the Saudi government has spent about $70 billion dollars to spread Wahhabi propaganda around the world. In the United States, partly as a result, college curricula and public opinion have been steered toward the Wahhabi view of the Middle East, which depicts Israel as a cancer and American influence as hateful “crusaderism.”46

One of the biggest success stories for Saudi money is the Middle East Studies program at Columbia. Palestinians dominate the teaching of the modern Middle East and present a decidedly anti-Israeli view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Academics in the program are often known more for their political activism than their scholarship. A case in point is Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Chair of Arab Studies, an activist who is on record as describing the killing of Israelis as justifiable resistance to occupation. Columbia’s head of International Studies has admitted publicly that Middle East studies at her school—and nationwide—aren’t even close to balanced.47

The University of California system has also received its share of Saudi financing. The head of Middle East Studies at UC Santa Barbara holds a chair named after the previous king of Saudi Arabia. The Center for Middle East Studies at UC Berkeley has received more than $5 million in grants from a pair of Saudis connected to groups which were later recognized by the U.S. government as front groups for al-Qaeda. UC Berkeley later became the origin of a petition (supported by faculty members) asking the federal government to divest itself of all investments and funding in Israel. The head of the Muslim American Society has conceded that, “Saudi gifts oblige their recipients to favor Wahhabism: [the Saudis say] ‘We’re gonna give you our money, then we want you to … prefer our school of thought.’”48

Most Americans don’t realize that some of the propaganda funding comes right out of their own pockets. After 9/11, the government directed more funding toward the Title VI program—a program begun during the Cold War to facilitate analysis of the Soviet regime and its intentions. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Congress strengthened the program’s shift toward funding Middle East Centers at American colleges and universities to teach Arabic and provide cultural education necessary for improved analysis of jihadists and their plans. Instead, partly through Saudi influence these centers are frequently hotbeds of anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda.49

THE PRISON SYSTEM AND ISLAMIC RADICALIZATION

One route Islamic radicals have taken to gain rapid influence in American society has been through the prison system. Law enforcement, prison officials, journalists, politicians, and academics have made extensive study of prison radicalization—one of the most fertile sources of homegrown jihadist activity in the country. In the words of two political scientists from Roosevelt University, “The threat produced by the introduction of radical Islam into the U.S. and other democratic states’ prison populations is very real although the severity of the threat is up for debate.”50 Factors complicating the assessment of the problem include the secretive nature of terror recruitment and the diversity of Islamic teachings offered within prison walls.

Despite difficulties with assessment, prison populations almost by definition are full of violent young men with a predisposition toward anti-social behavior. Some of these men consider themselves victims of society, and are accordingly receptive to being converted to ideologies espousing retribution while offering personal and political meaning.51 According to a Los Angeles police lieutenant who studied the problem:

Prisons literally provide a captive audience of disaffected young men easily influenced by charismatic extremist leaders. These inmates, mostly minorities, feel that the United States has discriminated against them or against minorities and Muslims overseas. This perceived oppression, combined with a limited knowledge of Islam, makes this population vulnerable for extremists looking to radicalize and recruit.52

Islam is the fastest-growing subculture in U.S. prisons, with significant numbers of prisoners converting. Given that the U.S. has the highest prison inmate population in the world, with 2.24 million incarcerated as of 2015, this is cause for concern.53 Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a professor who has studied the problem estimated that as many as 350,000 Muslims were currently housed in American prisons, with an additional 30,000-40,000 more being added each year, mostly by conversion.54 An FBI counterterrorism expert has also revealed that radicalized prison inmates have been involved in homegrown terrorist plots in complete isolation from international terrorist organizations. According to this expert, while most prison converts have not emerged as threats to national security, there are “instances where charismatic elements within prison have used the call of Global Jihad as a source of inspiration to recruit others for the purpose of conducting terrorist attacks in the United States.”55 The notorious “shoe bomber” Richard Reid was converted to radical Islam during his term in a prison in the United Kingdom.

The purpose of radical recruiters in prison is to build a pool of potential terrorists from which they can handpick individuals for future attacks. Such recruits need not become part of a larger organization like al-Qaeda—and many don’t. Instead, they bond with like-minded individuals and form autonomous terror cells. There is no way of knowing which cells or how many will later go operational.56 Jihadists in prison typically focus on one potential convert at a time. The recruiter will paint a picture of the global Islamic community under threat from aggressive infidels and their apostate allies. The antidote to the threat he presents is jihad, not as spiritual quest but as armed insurrection.57

Jihadist recruiters are also active in prison as part of an effort to shift the profile of Islamist attackers. Western and non-Muslim prisoners are preferred targets for recruiting efforts because such individuals simply do not fit the terrorist profile.58 A 2010 study found that, of 139 Muslim-Americans connected with violent terrorism between 2001 and 2009, the plurality were Arabs, but 24 percent were African American and 20 percent were Caucasian.59

A case in point is Kevin James, a prison convert from California. James and three cohorts conducted a series of gas station robberies over several years to fund a bombing plot hatched in Folsom Prison. The plot was foiled when one member of the gang was caught in connection with a holdup, but the FBI Director described the group as well on their way toward pulling off the attack. If not for a chance arrest, the group might have pulled off a mass killing without any direction from a large terror group like al-Qaeda.60 Such homegrown terror cells are extremely difficult to uncover, as the Boston Marathon Bombing by the Tsarnaev brothers later demonstrated.

Another problem contributing to prison radicalization is a shortage of qualified Muslim chaplains throughout the prison system. Through the efforts of Senator Chuck Schumer, the Bureau of Prisons was revealed several years back to be relying heavily on Saudi-funded Wahhabi clerics, who promote “an extremist exclusionary form of Islam.”61 Several researchers into the problem have advocated the promotion of moderate Muslim prison ministry to counteract efforts to spread an ideology of violent jihad.

RADICAL MOSQUES AND ISLAMIC CENTERS

Another route jihadists use to gain influence in American society involves the infiltration of mosques and Islamic centers. Contrary to the wishful thinking of politicians who prefer to dismiss terror atrocities as isolated events, jihadist beliefs are nurtured by very well- funded networks. These networks tend to cluster around popular mosques and prominent leaders. The Bridgeview mosque in Chicago was taken over by MB elements and ended up connecting local Muslims with the planning and funding of mass murder attempts in Israel. But an example which hits closer to home involves the Dar al-Hijrah mosque and Islamic Center in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Falls Church, Virginia.

Dar al-Hijrah was opened in 1991 thanks in part to funding from the Saudi embassy, and its deed is owned by a MB financial organization. A large and successful center with thousands attending its worship services, Dar al-Hijrah also has broad and deep connections to jihadist teaching and activity. Imam Mohammed al-Hanooti was heard in 1998 remarking (in Arabic, of course) that Israel and the United States were planning to destroy Muslims and praying for “Allah [to] rain his curse on the Americans and the British.”62 Al-Hanooti was an associate of convicted American terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman and a prominent fundraiser for Hamas.63

Al-Hanooti was replaced by a San Diego imam named Anwar al-Awlaki—a dedicated terrorist who would eventually meet his demise in 2011 during a drone strike in Yemen. When Awlaki arrived at Dar al-Hijrah in 2001 he was already under FBI investigation for his connections to an Islamic charity suspected of funneling money to terrorists. Awlaki reconnected with two men from San Diego in Virginia, and through Dar al-Hijrah he managed to get them housing and identification in Virginia.64 On 9/11, these two men were part of the five-man team that flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

During his leadership of Dar al-Hijrah, Awlaki met with a U.S. Army officer named Nidal Hasan. The two men established an email correspondence after Awlaki had left the country. They exchanged messages right up until Hasan went on a jihadist rampage at Fort Hood in 2009. On his website, Awlaki proclaimed Hasan a hero and a man of conscience after the attack. A month after Hasan’s attack, another “man of conscience” tried to blow up his Christmas Day flight as it approached Detroit. The so-called underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was sent on his mission by none other than Anwar al-Awlaki.65

For 20 years, Dar al-Hijrah has been a recruiting ground and networking center for jihadist indoctrination and activity. It has been under the direction of Muslim Brotherhood leaders committed to jihad in America and abroad. But Dar al-Hijrah is far from being alone.

The al-Farooq mosque in Brooklyn has also been a popular site for jihadists to teach, recruit, and raise funds. One particularly infamous member was Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian jihadist and one-time mentor of Osama bin Laden. Azzam taught members of the al-Farooq mosque bluntly, “Whenever jihad is mentioned in the Holy Book, it means the obligation to fight. It does not mean to fight with the pen or to write books or articles in the press or to fight by holding lectures.”66 Another key member was imam Omar Abdel Rahman (nicknamed the Blind Sheikh). One of Rahman’s followers was responsible for the 1990 murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane in Manhattan.67 But Rahman had a much bigger spectacle in mind: he and nine co-conspirators, after moving to a new mosque in Jersey City, planned a catastrophic “Day of Terror” involving bombs at UN headquarters, in the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and the George Washington Bridge, and at the main government building in Manhattan. Thankfully, the plot was exposed and all ten men were arrested in 1993 before they could carry out their attack.

The Islamic Society of Boston is where the Tsarnaev brothers attended mosque services before carrying out the Boston Marathon Bombing. Before the Tsarnaev brothers were on the scene, there were already connections between this Islamic center and terrorist activities. One member of the Islamic Society was Aafia Siddiqui. Also known as “Lady Al Qaeda,” Siddiqui was captured in 2008 in Kabul, Afghanistan with plans to target Americans both in that country and in New York City. Another Islamic Society attendee, Tarek Mehanna, was convicted in 2012 of conspiring to aid al-Qaeda and sentenced to 17 years in prison. One of the founders of the Islamic Society of Boston, Abdurahman Alamoudi, was himself a fundraiser for al-Qaeda and was sentenced to 23 years in prison for providing funds to terrorist organizations. Prior to his conviction, Alamoudi was an Islamic Affairs adviser and State Department “goodwill ambassador” to Muslim countries under the Clinton administration and was part of a group of Muslim leaders that publicly met with President Bush a few days after 9/11.68

Based on testimony by a former Muslim religious leader, as many as 80 percent of U.S. mosques are led by Wahhabi clerics or other radicals. Opponents claim this number is overblown, but their arguments rest upon a deceptive idea of what constitutes “radical” Islam. A review of literature freely available at mosques across the country shows that the promotion of Islamic supremacy, sharia law, and a view of jihad as armed struggle on behalf of the faith is common. Imams do not have to preach that their followers should go out and kill Americans in order to contribute to radicalization. There also remain many prominent and gullible people who too easily fall for the duplicity and deception that jihadists and Islamic supremacists have been employing in America for 50 years.

BIASED HISTORY TEXTBOOKS

Another route jihadists use to gain influence in American society involves the manipulation of what is taught about Islam in school textbooks. In 2008, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization called the American Textbook Council put together a report on some of the most commonly used history textbooks in the country. The report found that, while many political and religious groups have tried to use the textbook process to their own advantage:

The deficiencies in Islam-related lessons are uniquely disturbing. History textbooks present an incomplete and confected view of Islam that misrepresents its foundations and challenges to international security.69

The key problem was not clear falsehoods, but the inclusion of disputed conclusion as well as a sugar-coating of Islam that other religions and beliefs do not enjoy. Even when publishers were informed about such contested details, their response was to ignore them or to double down by removing material which might be deemed offensive to Islam. The report found that a combination of Islamic activism and political correctness on the part of publishers contributed to the situation: “Islamic activists use multiculturalism and ready- made American political movements, especially those on campus, to advance and justify uncritical Islam-related content makeover in history textbooks.”70

Researcher Daniel Pipes has encountered the same situation. A discussion of the 9/11 hijackers in one textbook refers to them merely as a “team of terrorists” without referencing their religion or al-Qaeda. Like the American Textbook Council, Pipes attributes the situation to a combination of “Islamic groups that are urging to have these unpleasant topics not discussed” and “activism on the part of the educational establishment which tends to see Muslims not in any kind of threatening posture but as victims … who need to be reached out to.”71

Due to the work of researchers such as Pipes and the American Textbook Council, the Texas School Board took up the debate of pro-Islamic bias in textbooks. Investigations by the Board found that many history books being considered for use by the state contained “sanitized” definitions of jihad and ignored the active persecution of non-Muslim groups in Muslim countries in favor of focusing on the past misdeeds of America and European countries. The Board’s efforts were treated by the politically correct media as little more than wasted effort on a non-problem.72

GROWING POLITICAL INFLUENCE

Of course, one of the most attractive ways to gain influence over American society is to acquire political power. On this front, Islamists have made inroads thanks to a growing population and considerable financial clout. As reporter Daniel Greenfield notes, officials in states with large Muslim populations are starting to form ties with Islamic associations— even those which serve as “front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood or other organizations that are equally antithetical to the United States.” Despite its documented connections with such groups, CAIR has enough influence that former Ohio governor Ted Strickland chose to speak at a banquet hosted by the organization and pander to Muslim causes.73

In early 2013, the Obama administration nominated John Brennan for Director of the CIA. Like the President, Brennan spent time in Indonesia in the 70s, where Islam came to shape his worldview:

Like the president during his childhood years in Jakarta, I came to see Islam not how it is often represented, but for what it is—how it is practiced every day, by well over a billion Muslims worldwide, a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity.74

Brennan has been a leading proponent of eliminating terms Muslims find offensive, such as “jihadists.”

A number of Islamists have found positions at the table in the Obama administration. Their number includes a former Assistant Secretary in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whose prior claim to fame was “derail[ing] the LAPD’s efforts to monitor the city’s Muslim community—particularly its radical mosques and madrassas where certain 9/11 hijackers were said to have received support.”75 Another senior advisor in DHS, Mohammad Elibiary, was a longtime donor to the Holy Land Foundation, five of whose leaders were convicted for financing terrorism, and has argued that the HLF’s imprisoned leader is a victim of political persecution. Elibiary has helped to perpetuate the lie that CAIR is merely a civil rights charity, has called America “a Muslim country,” and has recently claimed that a new caliphate is “inevitable.”76 One appointee to the National Commission on Terrorism ended up having his nomination scuttled after it was revealed that he had publicly defended Hezbollah and other Islamic groups.

Columnist Andrew McCarthy has observed several recent changes in U.S. government policy concerning the Muslim Brotherhood. The State Department has reversed a policy limiting formal contacts with members of the Brotherhood. It pushed to continue providing $1.5 billion in funding to Egypt even after the government was taken over by MB. The government dropped investigations into MB organizations in the U.S. despite those groups being previously identified as co-conspirators to provide money to Hamas.77

Interestingly enough, these changes took place at a time when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aide was Huma Abedin—a woman with documented family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Abedin’s mother, Saleha, is a member of the female division of the MB (the “Muslim Sisterhood”). Abedin herself was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association, a key Muslim Brotherhood foundational organization in the United States.78

ISLAMIC SEPARATISM

The growing influence of Islam in America has opened the door to separatism and criminal activity among Islamic populations. One of the best-documented cases of this involves the Somali Muslim population. In a high-profile bust in 2010, federal officials netted around three dozen Somali Muslim gang members operating out of Minnesota, Tennessee, and Ohio. Members were charged with burglary, car theft, and credit-card fraud. But the most heinous crimes involved a sex-trafficking and prostitution ring using runaways and girls “recruited” by gang members by false promises.79 According to government officials, Somali immigrant communities in Tennessee and Minneapolis worked together over a ten-year period and exploited girls as young as 12 years old.80

The Somali immigrant problem is a self-inflicted injury by the federal government. Motivated by humanitarian concerns, about 70,000 Somalis have been moved to the United States; 13,000 in 2004 alone. Most of these came from a strongly religious and tribal culture and had little exposure to western housing, electricity, flush toilets, telephones, or household appliances. They were essentially dropped off in America en masse with minimal orientation or adjustment.81

Tennessee journalist Brian Mosely has documented the disastrous results of this policy on the small town of Shelbyville. Charity groups helped relocate a community of several hundred Muslim immigrants to a small Christian town and then effectively left them on their own. Cultural clashes abounded. Immigrants refused to accept women in supervisory roles at the local schools and expected schools to provide free child care. Firefighters discovered the immigrants wouldn’t leave their apartments after a fire alarm— or even during an actual fire—but instead told firefighters they weren’t welcome. Police encountered resistance to their authority, and some officers were hesitant to patrol after dark in Somali areas. In short, the Somalis had little contact with their neighbors or local officials and instead created their own isolated community within a community.82

As a result of this isolation, the American Somali community has been a significant source of terrorism. The largest Somali community in America—located in Minneapolis, Minnesota—has been producing jihadist fighters for years. The Al Shabab group which conducted the deadly Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, Kenya has been receiving Somali- American fighters for six years. A recent video produced by Al Shabab lauded three “Minnesotan martyrs,” including one American-born convert to Islam.83

Humanitarian considerations are no justification for importing groups with no intention or ability to assimilate. In Mosely’s words, it is “immoral” to do so. While it is possible to help refugees out on a family by family basis, bringing in large masses of them to fill federal quotas and then leaving them on their own without the knowledge or experience of how to support themselves in a modern western society is disgraceful. It should come as no surprise that some members of these communities would turn to extreme forms of their religion or to terrorism.84

TERROR ATTACKS IN AMERICA

The growing influence of radical Islam in the United States has opened the door to ideologies more extreme than the Muslim Brotherhood. As a result, a number of terrorist attacks and attempted attacks since 9/11 have been carried out by American Muslims— many of them with little or no connection to organized terror. Most were “self-radicalized” or turned to militant Islam with little guidance or prompting from others.

Foiled attacks include a 2009 plot to blow up a synagogue and a Jewish community center in New York City. Three U.S. citizens and a Haitian were convicted in the case. The main clue as to motivation was reported unhappiness about U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2010, Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad was arrested for a car bombing attempt in Times Square. Later that same year, Somali-American Mohamed Osman Mohamud was arrested for a plot to car bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. Mohamud admitted he was motivated by a desire to carry out violent jihad. In 2011, Rezwan Ferdaus, a U.S. citizen, was arrested for a plot to detonate remote- controlled aircraft loaded with explosives over the Pentagon and the Capitol building. Ferdaus said he was motivated by watching al-Qaeda videos online.

One of the most significant terror attacks since 9/11 came at the hands of a Muslim officer in the U.S. Army. Major Nidal Hasan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, killing 13 and injuring more than 30 others. While serving in the Army, Hasan came to believe that he was on the “wrong side” in America’s war on terror. He admitted in his court-martial that he switched sides and opened fire on fellow soldiers to prevent them from going to Afghanistan to kill his fellow Muslims.85

The Fort Hood massacre has been problematic for the government and the military to deal with. From the start, there were signs that Army officers with concerns about Hasan’s growing radicalization may have remained silent due to an atmosphere of political correctness that discouraged noticing anything negative about Muslims soldiers. Both the Pentagon and the U.S. government have declined requests to categorize the attack as an act of terrorism or as motivated by Islamic religious convictions. Officially, the Pentagon says it has not done so because it would compromise prosecution efforts, but a spokesman for the families of the victims says this claim is nonsense.86 Hasan was found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced to death in August, 2013.

On April 15, 2013 two brothers, members of a Muslim family which emigrated from Chechnya, carried out a deadly bombing near the finish line at the Boston Marathon. Three people were killed and more than 250 injured in multiple blasts. A fourth person was killed the next day when the brothers attempted to flee from police. By the admission of the surviving brother, the pair was self-taught and self-radicalized. They learned how to make bombs by watching videos online. Although the pair were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs, they weren’t acting in concert with any known terror groups.87

These cases demonstrate that there is no need for central coordination or high-level funding for deadly terror attacks. Each Muslim is capable of acting as a terror entrepreneur, limited only by his own efforts and willingness to sacrifice for the cause. Because of the lack of coordination or money, such individuals can be very difficult—if not impossible—to track. It is of vital importance that the ideology which dominates these individuals be uprooted. Anything less would be to rely upon chance to uncover plots before they become reality.

ISLAM AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Apologists for Islam often make the argument that the increasing Muslim presence in America and other western countries is no cause for concern. Muslims will supposedly adapt to western institutions such as democracy and the rule of law. This argument, however, is superficial at best. The issue is not simply whether the burka may be worn or not, it is much more fundamental—will Muslims be primarily subject to the secular laws of their host countries or to the Islamic law embodied in sharia? Concessions to sharia have already been made in European countries with sizable Muslims populations. It remains to be seen what the case will be in America.

The crucial difference between the idea of law in Islam and the same idea in America will be seen in the beginning of the U.S. Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.” From the start, it is understood that it is the people who are coming together to create their government and its laws—as Abraham Lincoln put it, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” This belief is fundamentally at odds with Islamic law, which claims to be derived directly from God through the intermediary of immutable, irrefutable religious texts. An elite group of Islamic scholars, appointed by other Muslim clerics, are responsible for the interpretation of this law. Everyone else is excluded.

The U.S. government is based upon the Constitution. Article VI declares, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” Sharia, on the other hand, is based upon religious texts: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah … There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the sharia.”88

Sharia cannot co-exist for long with any other legal system. The reason for this is that Islam is a complete way of life, which includes a legal and moral code obligatory to all Muslims. Since Islamic law does not prescribe any specific form of government, many Muslim countries have parliaments and governmental structures which seem compatible with Western forms of government. On closer examination, however, the fundamental basis for these structures is entirely different.

The difference can be seen most clearly, perhaps, in the concept of separation of powers. The U.S. Constitution describes three separate branches of government (the legislative, the executive, the judicial), each with its own duties and responsibilities and checks and balances designed to prevent one from becoming superior to the others. Contrast this with the Iranian regime, which styles itself as an Islamic Republic. Iran has an elected legislature and an elected president. Yet the president cannot serve without being appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is appointed by a group of Islamic scholars whose sole responsibility is to the Qur’an. Unlike our Constitution, the Qur’an cannot be changed or amended. The Constitution of Iran is interpreted by a Guardian Council, which consists of 12 members appointed by the Supreme Leader. All laws enacted by the legislature must be approved by the Guardian Council. The purpose of this setup is to ensure that every law is consistent with sharia. The structure of the Iranian regime makes it clear that the government is not “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Rather, the entire thing is under the control of religious scholars, and the will of the people can never prevail against them.

While U.S. judges may have debates about the “intent” of the Founders or the legislatures which frame the laws, it is clear that the American democratic system allows for flexibility. The Constitution can be amended when necessary to take into account the realities of social change and new political needs. The Constitution is not perfect, it is “more perfect” than what went before. In the Islamic system, the Qur’an is immutable and perfect. The purpose of sharia is to get humans to live in a way that conforms to that text—not the other way around.

The real battleground lies in the area of individual rights. Many devout Muslims who are by no means fundamentalists or terrorists nevertheless view sharia as taking precedence over national laws. This view opens up a number of fault lines. Many of the individual rights guaranteed to Americans under the Constitution are flatly incompatible with sharia.

The incompatibility is obvious from the start with the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As a matter of historic and current political fact, Muslim countries under sharia law enforce second-class citizenship upon non-Muslims (a status discussed in earlier chapters, known as dhimmi). Non-Muslims face everything from limitations to outright bans on public religious observance, building or repairing houses of worship, public prayer, ringing church bells, or proselytizing for the faith. Those who violate these restrictions in sharia states face penalties ranging from fines to execution.

The First Amendment also guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Under Islam, speech contrary to Islam or Muhammad is unacceptable. This particular fault line has produced unrest and violence in western countries whenever someone dares to criticize Islam or its founder. The First Amendment further guarantees a freedom to dissent, allowing people the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Islamic states under sharia do not permit criticism of the government. When the Qur’an and other authoritative texts define the law, it cannot be questioned.

Other incompatibilities include the Eight Amendment’s protection against “cruel and unusual punishments.” Sharia law regularly permits punishments which would be considered cruel and unusual on the grounds that they have religious backing. For example: “Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah.”89 For rape victims: “The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day.”90

The Constitution further ensures to every citizen equal protection and due process under the laws. Such protections cannot exist under sharia, which makes an absolute distinction between the believers and the dhimmi (non-believers under Islamic protection). For those outside the believers and the dhimmi, there is virtually no protection whatsoever. Under sharia, females do not enjoy equal protection. Non-Muslims under dhimmi protection are not equal to Muslims before the law.

Of course, Islam is much more varied than Islamic fundamentalists claim. As practiced in Malaysia or Indonesia, Islam is a much different thing than what is practiced in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Certainly many Muslims could assimilate easily into American society, but this is no thanks to Islam, but is often due to their non-Islamic cultural heritage. Should Islam be credited with the ability of a sophisticated, secular Iranian to integrate into Western culture, or should his Persian heritage receive the credit?

Fundamentalist Muslims who come to the U.S. will have to make a choice between obeying U.S. law or obeying what they believe to be their faith. Some, like Major Nidal Hasan, may come to believe they are on the “wrong side” if they choose the former. Others may decide they will only be subject to sharia and recognize no other law. America has faced conflicts with religious groups holding incompatible beliefs before. For example, Mormons formerly practiced polygamy. Despite the separation between church and state, this practice was deemed to be unacceptable when Utah petitioned to become a state. Mormons accepted that to become part of the United States they would have to give up the practice of polygamy. Muslims who demand the right to live under sharia may be asking us to revert to a state we long ago rejected, where one religion held primacy over all things. If America cannot accommodate Islamic law without endangering its most basic principles, it is the practice of Islam which must change—not American laws or values.

As the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Explanatory Memorandum” makes clear, Islam is not interested in being equal to other religions. All other religions must be replaced or else see their adherents become second-class citizens. Free inquiry is impermissible. The role Islam seeks in American life can be compared to that of a strangler fig tree. This tree germinates in the shade of its host and grows up around the body of the host. Once the strangler fig puts down roots and stands on its own, it chokes the host off from all nutrients, killing it. The host tree rots away, leaving only the strangler fig standing in the vague shape of its former host. The Muslim Brotherhood’s strangler fig has not yet taken firm root, but it is already growing into its host. It remains to be seen what the host will do to counteract the civilizational jihad at work in America.