|
Yesterday's Congressional
hearing, led by Congressman Ron DeSantis (FL), layed out the
threat posed by the International Muslim Brotherhood and why
designating them a terrorist organization is critical to our national
security.
This is, as UTT has made
clear in the past, an important line of operation in this war and one
which should be pursued with great vigor.
However, statements made
during the hearing raise serious concerns of a continued gross lack
of understanding of the threat by drawing broad distinctions between
Muslim Brotherhood doctrine and "true Islam."
Since the "true
Islam" referred to during the hearings does not exist, and in
fact the "version" of Islam articulated by the
International Muslim Brotherhood - as well as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and
others - is core Islamic doctrine, the difference between the two is
a fantasy and is no place to try to build strategies for victory.
Testimonies
Raising Concern
The testimony
of Dr. Hillel Fradkin from the Hudson Institute
agreed the Muslim Brotherhood's goal is to establish an Islamic
State, yet placed the root of this idea at the feet of the Muslim
Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna, and did not acknowledge Muslim
Brotherhood doctrine
is core Islamic doctrine.
Fradkin went on to say that
"This approach entailed the gradual transformation of society to
Brotherhood principles before the seizure of political power, in
Egypt and elsewhere." Dr. Fradkin attributed this
"gradualist" approach as an invention of al Banna.
In reality this
"approach" comes from core Islamic doctrine. It is
progressive revelation, and simply reaffirms the exact same methods
used by Islam's perfect man, Islam's prophet Mohammad, to implement
Islam in society.
In his testimony, Jonathan
Schanzer from the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies stated, "Many Muslim Brotherhood branches subject
their members to rigid indoctrination processes and vet
their members for their commitment to the organization's
ultimate goal, which is to empower the Brotherhood's politicized and
deeply intolerant interpretation of Islam."
The question must be asked,
since this comment was made in testimony on Capital Hill, how is the
"Brotherhood's politicized and deeply intolerant interpretation
of Islam" different from what 12 year old muslims are taught in
U.S. Islamic schools? How does it differ from what the highest
authority in Islamic jurisprudence - Al Azhar - teaches Islamic
scholars?
It does not.
Mr. Schanzer went on to
say, "Factions of the Brotherhood without a history of violence
or terrorism finance do not warrant scrutiny," and recommended
the U.S. should "Designate the violent actors while keeping a
close eye on non-violent ones."
Since the global Islamic
Movement's primary road to victory is in the non-violent realm,
to focus primarily on the violence - as the enemy wants us to do - is
to lose the war.
Zuhdi
Jasser, a muslim doctor from
Arizona identified himself as a "devout muslim" in his
In his statement, Dr. Jasser
said, "Neither Islam nor Muslims are monolithic and should not
be treated as such by anyone."
The problem with this
statement is two-fold. First, it is untrue. The thing
that binds the Islamic world together is the obligation, under
penalty of death, for muslims to obey sharia and work to impose it on
the world. There is no "version" of Islam that does
not require this.
Secondly, the statement
that Islam is not monolithic and very hard to understand, is
something UTT teaches its students to repel with the truth. It
is on UTT's radar because it has been a talking point for the Islamic
Movement for over 20 years.
Dr. Jasser also asserted,
"For us (muslims) it is a very personal mission to leave our
American Muslim children a legacy that their faith is based in the
unalienable right to liberty and to teach them that the principles
that founded America do not contradict their faith but strengthen
it."
In fact, there is no book
of Islamic law or any Islamic school text used in the United States -
or elsewhere for that matter - which teaches muslims to adhere to
America's founding principles. In fact, the most widely used
text book in U.S. Islamic schools,
What
Islam is All About,
reads: "The duty of muslim citizens is to be loyal to the
Islamic State."
In the end, Dr. Jasser
recommends the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood gradually
beginning with a few Islamic nations overseas, but NOT in the United
States.
The testimony
of Ambassador Daniel Benjamin
denied the clarity of the International Muslim Brotherhood's
objectives and their controlling doctrine (sharia) when he testified,
"There is no singular, monolithic Muslim Brotherhood...there is
no central administration linking these disparate groups. In
character and matters of doctrine, they vary greatly...Does the
Muslim Brotherhood constitute a global threat? Here too, I
would answer that it does not. Most of the groups that are said
to be Muslim Brotherhood affiliates or franchises support democracy
and abjure violence."
Setting aside the fact the
leadership of the International Muslim Brotherhood hosts regular
meetings to discuss strategy and assess their progress, these
comments leave listeners/readers with the idea that different levels
of sharia implementation in different Islamic nations by the Muslim
Brotherhood is synonymous with a lack of unified doctrine or modus
operandi, which is demonstrably untrue.
To say the MB rejects
violence is to be wrong. See their by-laws here.
The Brotherhood calls for
the implementation of sharia on the planet.
It is all about
sharia. That is what links the entire global Islamic Movement
together.
Notable are the comments by
Congressman Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts during the hearing which
reveal a continued lack of understanding of the Islamic threat by
major components of the U.S. government. After listing examples
of violence advocated and perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr.
Lynch said, in part, "Meanwhile, democratically elected
political parties that also fall within the Muslims Brotherhood
umbrella represent a significant voting block in the Parliaments and
government coalitions of some of our key counterterrorism allies in
the middle east and north Africa...the State department lists Tunisia
along with Jordan and Morocco as our committed partners in the
coalition to defeat the Islamic State."
And therein lies the
problem. Tunisia, Jordan, and Morocco are all parties to the
OIC which served the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in
Islam" to the United Nations in 1993 which states how all 57
Islamic states on the planet view the rest of the world and how
non-muslims are to be treated - through the lens of sharia.
The
Enemy's Unified Objective
The enemy in this war
unambiguously and unanimously identifies itself as "muslims
waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State
under sharia."
Different elements of the
enemy's army have different roles and different methods to get to the
same end - an Islamic State under sharia.
Every Islamic nation on
earth is a party to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)
which calls for sharia on the earth.
Al Qaeda, ISIS, and
thousands of violent jihadi organizations on the earth state their
objective is an Islamic State under sharia.
All Islamic doctrine
(sharia) requires muslims to wage war against non-muslims, in
accordance with sharia, until an Islamic State is established under
sharia.
Enemy's
Main Line of Operation: Non-Violent Action
The idea the U.S. should
only focus on groups or individuals engaged in violence is the same
failed idea bringing the U.S. closer to defeat in this war.
The enemy's line of
operation that continues to be wildly successful against the
non-muslim world is their ability to create the optical illusion that
one part of their forces is pitted against another part and,
therefore, friendly to us.
For instance, when
suit-wearing jihadis from Hamas doing business as the Council on
American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stepped in front of television
cameras and condemned the killings in San Bernardino, they appeared
reasonable and "moderate" relative to the two jihadis and
the dead bodies they left behind.
As the Islamic Movement
moves forward and gains ground, they are increasingly willing to hold
out the Muslim Brotherhood as the problem so long as it keep U.S.
leaders from ever identifying Islam as the problem.
The concern UTT continues
to voice is this: time is growing short.
Leaders in the Islamic
Movement know they need to keep us off target just a little bit
longer. So the closer American's get to the truth, the more
finely Islamic leaders parse the truth.
U.S. Muslim Brotherhood
leaders have kept this administration from designating the MB
terrorists for over a year and a half. As there is a growing
consensus to designate them, the calls now come for a partial
designation because - we are told - people who want to non-violently
overthrow America's Constitutional Republic and replace it with a
barbaric system which enslaves human beings (sharia/Islam) - should
not be the focus of U.S. efforts against the Brotherhood.
In focusing primarily on
the violent elements of the Islamic Movement, the United States is in
grave danger of losing a war it could easily win if it simply
identified the threat - sharia adherent muslims.
Coda
Yesterday's hearing did a
good thing by moving the ball forward in America's effort to
designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. As
government officials move forward in their efforts to protect and
defend this Republic, they will do well to remember that TRUTH is the
standard to which national security professionals must cling if
victory is still the objective.
Our objective, not the
enemy's.
To read this article online click HERE
To subscribe to UTT's YouTube Channel click HERE
Follow UTT on Twitter @UTT_USA
Support UTT by Joining Our
25 for Freedom Campaign
Give $25 a month to help UTT Take the Fight to
the Enemy
Donations to Americans for America are tax
deductible.
100% of what you give for UTT supports our
work!!!
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment