Shelves: authoritarianism , islam , political-theory , revisionism , s This was definitely an exciting and engaging book to read. Just conspiratorial enough to be a page turner. But it is also just a touch too conspiratorial, so that you cannot totally believe the author. Anyway, the basic thesis here is that Islamic fundamentalists are infiltrating the west via "moderate" Islamic groups which are really Muslim Brotherhood fronts, via pressure on American academic institutions to generate apologetics for Islam in the vein anti-orientalist This was definitely an exciting and engaging book to read.

Author:Jujind Maulkis
Country:Moldova, Republic of
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):21 May 2007
PDF File Size:5.80 Mb
ePub File Size:8.79 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Oct 28, Oct 28, For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas. Such a breakdown may seem incredible to veterans of past military conflicts. Imagine fighting World War II without clarity about Nazism and fascism, or the Cold War without an appreciation of Soviet communism and the threat it posed.

Yet today, the civilian leaders of this country and their senior subordinates — responsible for the U. That failure is the more worrisome since the current ideological menace is arguably more dangerous than any we have faced in the past, for two reasons.

First, its adherents believe their mission of global conquest is divinely inspired. Second, they are here in the United States in significant numbers, not just a threat elsewhere around the world.

What, then, is this ideology? It has been given many names in recent years, including political Islam, radical Islam, fundamentalist Islam, extremist Islam and Islamofascism. There is, however, a more accurate descriptor — the one its adherents use. In other words, this comprehensive program is not simply the agenda of extremists hunkered down in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Neither can its directives be attributed to deviants hijacking Islam. It is taught as such by the most revered sacred texts, traditions, institutions, top academic centers, scholars and leaders of the Islamic faith. Fortunately, hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world do not wish to live under a brutally repressive, woman-demeaning, barbaric and totalitarian program.

Such Muslims are potentially our allies, just as those who do adhere to Shariah are our unalterable foes. In such circumstances, the struggle can be pursued through means that are, at least temporarily, non-violent. If stealth jihad seems less threatening than terrorism, the objective is exactly the same as that of violent jihad: the subjugation to the Dar al-Islam House of Islam of all non-Islamic states that, like the United States, make up the Dar al-harb House of War.

Many Western elites, including the Obama administration, have been seduced by the seemingly benign quality of the Muslim Brotherhood. For this strategy to succeed, however, they must suppress any discussion or understanding of the true nature of Shariah. Adherents to Shariah insist that their law prohibits any slander against Islam or Muhammad. Under such a catch-all restriction, virtually any kind of conversation about — or critique of — Islam can be considered impermissible if Muslims find it offensive.

Particularly in Europe, the ever-present prospect of violence, like that which followed the September publication of Danish cartoons poking fun at Muhammad, is generally sufficient to induce self-censorship. Unfortunately, the Obama administration last year co-sponsored with Egypt a relevant and deeply problematic resolution in the U.

The resolution calls on members of the United Nations to prohibit statements that offend Islam. The U. It is a safe bet that any formal effort to supplant the First Amendment in this way would meet with great resistance.

To a stunning degree, U. For instance, presidents George W. One of the most egregious examples of this practice of unilateral disarmament in the battle of ideas is the January report of the independent review of the Fort Hood massacre, co-chaired by former Army Secretary Togo West and former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vernon Clark. Their page unclassified analysis purported to dissect an event allegedly perpetrated by Maj. Now, reportedly, six of them have been designated as the scapegoats for what is manifestly an institutional failure.

Indeed, Shariah offers non-believers only three choices: conversion to Islam, submission known as dhimmitude or death.

Historically, dhimmitude was imposed through successful Muslim conquests. In more recent years, tolerant Western nations have increasingly succumbed to stealthy jihadism, backed by more or less direct threats of violence.

That trend, worrying as it is, may be giving way in this country to a new campaign: jihad of the sword. The past year saw a fourfold increase in the number of actual or attempted terrorist attacks in the United States. Sadly, that statistic will likely be surpassed in the year ahead. Worse yet, a blue-ribbon commission has calculated that the probability of the use of weapons of mass destruction somewhere in the world by is now over 50 percent.

Is this dramatic upsurge in violent jihad directed at the United States unrelated to our behavior? Or does it reflect a growing calculation on the part of our Shariah-adherent enemies that violence against the United States is now, once again, practicable?

Either way, the time has clearly come to make a far more serious effort to defeat both the violent and stealthy forms of jihad being waged against this country. If we are to do so, however, we have to start by telling the truth.

Rather, it is the millions of Muslims who — like the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and their allies — adhere to Shariah and who, therefore, believe they must impose it on the rest of us. We are at war with such individuals and organizations. Not because we want to be. Not because of policies toward Israel or the Middle East or anything else we have pursued in recent years.

Rather, we are at war with them because they must wage jihad against us, pursuant to the dictates of Shariah, the same law that has guided many in Islam for some 1, years. What is at stake in this war? Shariah would supplant them with a repressive, transnational, theocratic government abroad and at home. To the contrary, the facts are widely available via books, the Internet, DVDs and mosques, both here and overseas.

Interestingly, on Dec. Remember Hitler. No equivocation on their part. Unfortunately, engaging in such analysis, let alone acting on it, was powerfully discouraged in January when Coughlin was dismissed from the Joint Staff after he ran afoul of a Muslim Brother then working for Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

If this dereliction is allowed to persist, it is predictable that more Americans will die, both on foreign battlefields and at home. The American people also need to become knowledgeable about the threat of Shariah and insist that action be taken at federal, state and local levels to keep our country Shariah-free.

Gaffney Jr.


Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs



Stealth Jihad






Related Articles