“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] 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 their hands and the hands of the believers…”
Page 7, Explanatory Memorandum, 1991, Muslim Brotherhood
I noted in Part I of this review that the “Islamophobia” of Americans is more the enemy recognized by our “defenders” than is the actual enemy, Islam, the enemy that cannot be named. Within that purgatory of purposeless analytical bean-counting and sand-sifting is a startling and craven ignorance of the actual enemy, enforced by post-modern, left-wing politically correct thought and speech, while the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) stymie any meaningful investigation and intelligence analysis by determining definitions and “red lines” and the language employed in the War on Terror.
The Center for Security Policy briefly recounts the history of the Explanatory Memorandum cited above, dated May 22, 1991.
It amounted to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States and was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” The Explanatory Memorandum was written…by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram. It had been approved by the Brotherhood’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference and was meant for internal review by the Brothers’ leadership in Egypt.
Actually, the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC do not stymie our politicians, the military, and intelligence agencies; they stymie themselves. The censorship is voluntary, not imposed. The enemy knows this. Our leadership does not, because it is immersed in a swamp of psychobabble and behavior babble and “violent extremism” babble. All the varieties of babble are meant to enable the leadership to defer knowledge of Islam, Sharia, and patronize the language games of the OIC and the Brotherhood.
Rather than prosecute a genuine War on Terror, our leadership would rather wear a blindfold and play “Pin the tail on the donkey,” the donkey being anything but Islam. Islam, in their eyes, is a “religion of peace” that was and is still being “hijacked” by “radicals,” “extremists,” “lone wolves,” al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al- Shabaab, and ISIS. It’s either that, or acts of terrorism have nothing to do with Islam.
Stephen Coughlin, in Catastrophic Failure, torpedoes that whole perilous and near-treasonous mindset. They’re all cut from the same cloth, and that cloth is Sharia law.
First, let’s take a look at the Ten Year Programme of Action devised by the 57-member state OIC for the express purpose of criminalizing freedom of speech in the West but in particular in the United States. The OIC, which has an observer status in the United Nations, is counting on the UN to pass Resolution 16/18, which would in effect globally criminalize “Islamophobia” or anything negative statement or stance on Islam. Further, the OIC, hand-in-hand with the UN, has decided that “Islamophobia” and any other criticism of Islam is “racist.” It has a new definition of “racism,” which is criticism of Islam based on religion, not on ethnicity. That religion is Islam.
These are quotations directly from the “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century – Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference, Makkah al Mukarramah - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 5-6 dhul qa’dah 1426 h 7-8 December 2005.”
Emphasize that inter-civilizational dialogue, based on mutual respect and understanding, and equality amongst people are prerequisites for international peace and security, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, and participation in developing the mechanism for that dialogue….
Endeavour to spread the correct ideas about Islam as a religion of moderation and tolerance and to safeguard Islamic values, beliefs and principles in order to fortify Muslims against extremism and narrow-mindedness…..
This is all guff for Western, non-Muslim public consumption. As Coughlin discusses, in Islamic law, ostensibly benign terms such as “tolerance,” “terrorism” and “peaceful co-existence” do not mean the same things to the OIC or any Muslim conversant in the Koran as they might mean to us. “Tolerance” is not extended to non-Muslims unless they pay jizya, which theoretically buys dhimmis relief from persecution by Islam; “terrorism” is confined to the killing of other Muslims, not of non-Muslims, which is a moral obligation stated in the Koran; and “peaceful co-existence” means that you being a Muslim should get along with your Muslim neighbors, provided they are of the same Muslim sect (Sunni or Shi’ite). “Human rights?” Only Muslims are “human.” And only Muslims have “rights.” There is no “peaceful co-existence” possible between Islam and non-Muslims, only a hudna or temporary truce.
Under the “Combating Islamophobia” heading are these points:
1. Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.
2. Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter Islamophobia.
3. Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments. [This is Resolution 16/18, endorsed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton among others; see the Coughlin video embedded in this Counter Jihad report.]
4. Initiate a structured and sustained dialogue in order to project the true values of Islam and empower Muslim countries to help in the war against extremism and terrorism.
A crucial characteristic of Islamic law is that it is supposed to be the “law of the land.” Contrary to popular belief, “radical” or “extremist” Muslims almost never say, “I fight jihad to gain converts to Islam.” When they talk about bringing Islam to the world, they are usually referring to Islamic law….They do not talk about religion.
Everyone who has spent time researching Islam has heard the statement: Islam is not just a religion, but a complete way of life governed by Islamic law….
“Not just a religion” indicates that the theology of Islam is subordinate to the law of Islam. While the personal elements of Islam are – and ought to be – protected by the First Amendment, to the extent that “governed by Islamic law” means Islam should be the “law of the land,” Islam’s ambitions might conflict with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. In stipulating that the Constitution “shall be the supreme law of the land,” Article VI establishes that no higher authority or system of government can supersede its influence. [pp. 54-55]
Doubtless the 57 heads of state, kings, and government officials conceded that Islam is followed by numerous ethnic groups, including by Caucasian converts to Islam. But the racism designation carries or invokes a particularly repellant form of intolerance. Needless to say, Islam itself is manifestly intolerant of all other religions. The OIC, as Coughlin explains, poses as the Islamic Ummah, which, according to its own Sharia-defined premises, is a state. This is, then, a state that wishes to obviate the U.S. Constitution and establish its own rule over this country. With Sharia as the new “law of the land.”
The purpose of the OIC’s Ten Year Programme is in perfect conformance with the statement from the Explanatory Memorandum excerpted above. That is all. And the “organizing principle” elucidated by Stephen Coughlin is simple, as well: It is the incremental imposition of Sharia law or Islamic law.
Why incremental? Because the OIC is heeding Seyyid Qutb’s advice in his 1964 manifesto Milestones (Ma'alim fi al-Tariq) to slowly introduce Sharia in the West and particularly on Americans, so they can accustom or acclimatize themselves to living under Sharia law. I discuss Qutb, his life, and his priorities in my 2012 column. “The Madness of Qutb’s Milestones.”
Milestones, published in 1964* (Ma'alim fi al-Tariq), purports to adhere to and advance the cause and spread of a moral code that will "save" mankind. The book is actually a manifesto for nihilism that guarantees man's enslavement and the eradication of any and all who refuse to submit to Islam….
Qutb was a selfless little man, a "moderate" Muslim, who came out of Egypt to absorb Western methods of education (in the U.S. 1948-1950), and returned to Egypt convinced that the West needed to be educated about the true nature of Islam, even if that pedagogy meant killing, maiming, and enslaving non-believers. He developed a special animus for the United States, for that is where he went to learn about Western education. Long before any mullah deemed America the "Great Satan," Qutb's observations of the country during his two-year sojourn here caused him to mark it for jihad and its cultural and/or violent conversion to Islam.
That is, he marked it for death. For that is all Islam is – a nihilist state of existence for Muslim zombies and their looted and subservient non-believers….
The Koran, he emphasized, was not just a book to consult for "culture and information." It was a command for action, a blueprint for purification and conquest.
Coughlin links the policy of abrogation – in which earlier Koranic verses are replaced permanently with newer, violent verses – with Qutb’s recommended strategy of the gradual, “peaceful” abrogation of secular and civil American law. This is called the Milestone Process. The process also applies to an individual Muslim’s own fitna or internal struggle on the way to becoming an “ideal” Muslim, ready to wage jihad. A succinct video that explains the abrogation of verses can be viewed here.
In 2012, Sunni scholar and chief Muslim Brotherhood jurist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi used Milestones vocabulary when discussing the strategic implementation of Islamic law in then-Brotherhood-controlled Egypt:
I think the shari’a should be implemented gradually. This is a law of the shari’a and a law of nature….We should do thing gradually. We should prepare the people, teach them. People have to learn. We have to make an effort to teach people the truth about Islam….People do not understand the shari’a properly…I think that in the first five years, there should be no chopping off of hands. This period should be dedicated to teaching things. A transitional phase….
Al-Qaradawi was discussing the rise of the Brotherhood in Egypt. But, as Coughlin points out, the same principle applies to America. Writes Coughlin:
Through time, fidelity to the Milestones narrative has been consistent – including within the Muslim Brotherhood in America. Its secret strategy document restates Qutb’s message and includes a common emphasis on developments in stages as stated in Qur’an Verse 17: 106 in the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum.
Quoting Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Badi from an online magazine, Ikhwanonline from 2011:
The writer of the memorandum [Mohammed Akram] believes that understanding and comprehending the historical stages of the Islamic activism which was led and being led by the Muslim Brotherhood in this continent is a very important key in working towards settlement, through which the Group observes its march, the direction of its movement and the curves and turns of its road. [Note: The Explanatory Memorandum associates “settlement” with “civilization jihad.”][Second brackets Coughlin’s] (pp. 145-147)
Compounding the damage to the nation’s security caused by performing pseudo threat analyses by our intelligence agencies, analyses that mean nothing because they don’t parse or acknowledge the role of Sharia and are not in the least reality-based – so thoroughly explicated by Coughlin – and exacerbating the crippled state of our “defenders’” epistemology and metaphysics vis-à-vis a shrunken, politically correct lexicon and vocabulary written by the enemy and enthusiastically adopted by the DHS, the FBI, the Pentagon, and all of our military services, is the fact that the OIC and the Brotherhood have deemed telling a single demonstrable truth about Islam as outright defamation, blasphemy and evidence of “Islamophobia.”
In the Koran, it is spelled out that the "good" is whatever advances or promotes the spread of Islam; the "bad" is whatever rejects, combats, or repudiates Islam. That's the basic measure of the Islamic definitions of good and bad. The "good" should be done or encouraged; the bad is wrong and should be forbidden. But, in fact, there are no Islamic definitions of either term; it's just Allah's command. Period. Muslims don't demand that Allah define his terms. That would verge on blasphemy or apostasy, and incur the death penalty. So, they do not question Allah or Islam. It just "is." What color can I have my new Model T Ford in? Any color you want, as long as it's black. Muslims treat Islam as though it were a metaphysical entity whose existence and nature can't be questioned or disputed.
The “Islamophobia” charge is one our “defenders” understand. Thus they go out of their way to not hurt the feelings or to not offend the alleged dignity and super-sensitive “esteem” of countless anonymous Muslims here and abroad and of the governing Islamists in the OIC and the Brotherhood – to not risk inadvertently “slandering” the prophet or even remotely insinuating that Islam is not a “religion of peace” but totalitarian through and through that depends on fear and force – or to not get the OIC and the Brotherhood and the UN angry with them and instigate another staged violent “Day of Rage.” For as Coughlin reveals there is a convergence of Sharia-driven forces that results in violence and submission to the incremental establishment of the political element of Islam in the West, a convergence of which our “defenders” are well aware but refuse to acknowledge publically but which could have been foreseen and countered. Those forces are the three “pillars” mentioned in Part I: jihadi, dawah, and the Ummah.
Catastrophic Failure is not a light read. One must focus on each point Coughlin makes in its nine main Parts: The One Organizing Principle – The Red Pill – The Islamic Movement and its Awakening – Organization of the Islamic Caliphate – Days of Rage – Blasphemy and Deterrent Punishment in America – Catastrophic Failures – Our Ignorance – and the Duty to Know. One must focus and perform the task of comprehension and integration which is fraught with dangers our “defenders” would rather not address and face. Americans not in the intelligence-gathering business can formulate their own threat-analyses – in fact, have done so – and find our politicians and “War on Terror” policymakers severely wanting to the point that charges of a dereliction of duty and a violation of the oath to defend and protect America and Americans would be a long-overdue indictment.
Beginning in 2011, Coughlin was declared persona non grata in the classrooms and lecture halls of the Pentagon and other venues in which warfighting anti-terrorism policies are taught. The truths he reveals hurt the suicidal policies of accommodation to Islam. But he would not be silenced. The official brush-off by the White House and the civilian and military counter-intelligence entities persuaded him to write Catastrophic Failure. The word is now out.
If anyone ever deserved to be conferred the Medal of Freedom, it is Stephen Coughlin.
Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.