The Islamic Center of Toledo Mosque and Minarets (source)
Cross-posted atÂ The American Thinker (Andrew Bostom)
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan represents the triumphant Janus-faced approach to the fundamentalist global “Islamic revival.” He and his pious forbears have now completed dismantling Turkey’s secular experiment, and achieved the full-throated re-Islamization of Turkish society, an insidious processÂ begun already within the decade after Ataturk’s death, in 1938.Â When currying favor with gullible Western audiences, Erdogan burbles disingenuous ecumenical platitudes about the “Alliance of Civilizations.” But in reality, this is anÂ Islamization campaign promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, notably Saudi Arabia, whichÂ rewarded Erdogan, for his role in the Alliance, specifically, as “services to Islam,” with the “King Faisal International Prize,” considered the “Nobel prize” of the Arab world. Regardless, Erdogan has always aroused his Muslim constituencies by brazenly appealing to their deep-seated jihadist sentiments as he did while mayor of Istanbul, in 1997, delivering a fiery speech that reminded the masses of these words from theÂ poem “The Soldier’s Prayer,” written (in 1912) by Turkish nationalist poet Ziya Gokalp:
“The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets,Â the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army.”
Cited appropriately by successful opponents of minaret construction in Switzerland, such rhetoric should now resonate uncomfortably in America with the online release Monday June 6, 2011 of alarming survey data from a representative national sample of US mosques.
During August 2007, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) released “Radicalization in the West â€” The Homegrown Threat.” This insightful 90-pagereport evaluated the threat that had become apparent since 9/11/2001, analyzing the roots of recent terror plots in the United States, from Lackawanna in upstate New York to Portland, Ore., to Fort Dix, NJ. Based upon these case-study analyses of individuals arrested for jihadist activity, the authorsÂ concluded that the “journey” of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadists began in so-called “Salafist” (“fundamentalist” to non-Muslims) mosques characterized by high levels of Shariaâ€”Islamic Lawâ€”adherence. The landmark study just published, “Sharia and Violence in American Mosques” (Kedar M, Yerushalmi D.The Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2011, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 59-72) sought to expand considerably upon the NYPD’s post-hoc, case studyÂ approachâ€”systematically gathering objective survey data, with much greater methodological rigorâ€”and address these twoÂ a priori questions: I) Is there a robust association between observable measures of religious devotion, coupled to Sharia-adherence in US mosques, and the presence of violence-sanctioning materials at these mosques?; and II) Is there a robust association between the presence of violence-sanctioning materials at a mosque, and the advocacy of jihadism by the mosque’s leadership via recommending the study of these materials, or other manifest behaviors?
Full details of the sampling methodology, extracts of representativeÂ jihadpromoting materials (texts), and specific Sharia-compliant behaviors recorded, are provided in the accompanying appendices, reproduced from the full study (which will be availableÂ here 6/6/11). In brief, survey data were collected from a nationally representative, random statistical sample of 100 US mosques, covering 14 states, and the District of Columbia. This concise overview of the basic data collection proceduresâ€”including a self-critical, honest caveat by the authors about “completeness” of the available information on US mosque locationsâ€”is reproduced verbatim from the report (p. 68):
A surveyor visited a subject mosque in order: (a) to observe and record 12 Sharia-adherent behaviors of the worshipers and the imam (or lay leader); (b) to observe whether the mosque contained the selected materials rated as moderate and severe; (c) to observe whether the mosque contained materials promoting, praising, or supporting violence or violent jihad; and (d) to observe whether the mosque contained materials indicating the mosque had invited guest speakers known to have promoted violent jihad. Thus, the survey only examined the presence of Sharia-adherent behaviors, the presence of violence positive materials in mosques, whether an imam would promote the study of violence-positive materials, and whether a mosque was used as a forum to promote violent jihad. Since there is no central body to which all mosques belong, it was difficult to ascertain that the sampling universe list was complete. This may have introduced bias into the sampling although the authors find no evidence of any systemic distortions.
The study’s results provide clearâ€”and ominousâ€”affirmative answers to theÂ a priori questions posed. Sharia-adherence was strongly associated with the presence of jihad-violence sanctioning materials, and the presence of jihad-violence sanctioning materials was in turn robustly associated with advocacy of jihadism by mosque imamsâ€”religious leaders. This key summary finding was highlighted by the authors:
…51 percent of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shari‘a-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence like the Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Fiqh as-Sunna; 19 percent had no violent texts at all.
Thus 81% of this statistical sample representative of US mosques were deemed as moderately (30%) to highly (51%) supportive of promulgating jihad violence to impose Shari’a.
Additional profoundly troubling findings emerge when the data are explored in depth beyond these summary observations. For example, only 4.7% of Muslim worshippers attended mosques where jihadist materials were not provided because Sharia-compliant mosques promoting jihad were the most heavily attended. The authors also describe these specific details indicating that the preponderance of US mosques sanction jihad terrorism and its ultimate goal of aCaliphate (i.e., the transnational imposition of strict Islamic law in current Muslim nations, and ultimately global imposition of Islamic Law,Â including in the US), if one includes advocacy of financial support for this sacralized violence (from pp. 67-69).
The survey found a strong correlation between the presence of severe violence-promoting literature and mosques featuring written, audio, and video materials that actually promoted such acts. By promotion of jihad, the study included literature encouraging worshipers to engage in terrorist activity, to provide financial support to jihadists, and to promote the establishment of a caliphate in the United States. These materials also explicitly praised acts of terror against the West; praised symbols or role models of violent jihad; promoted the use of force, terror, war, and violence to implement the Sharia; emphasized the inferiority of non-Muslim life; promoted hatred and intolerance toward non-Muslims or notional Muslims; and endorsed inflammatory materials with anti-U.S. views… [O]f the 51 mosques that contained severe materials, 100 percent were led by imams who recommended that worshipers study texts that promote violence.
[M]osques containing violence positive materials were substantially more likely to include materials promoting financial support of terror than mosques that did not contain such texts. A disturbing 98 percent of mosques with severe texts included materials promoting financial support of terror. Those with only moderate rated materials on site were not markedly different, with 97 percent providing such materials.
These results were comparable when using other indicators of jihad promotion. Thus, 98 percent of mosques that contained severe-rated literature included materials promoting establishing an Islamic caliphate in the United States as did 97 percent of mosques containing only moderate rated materials.
These are the hard data that make plain why the “see no Sharia in America”mindslaughter redolent across the political spectrum amongst our policymaking, academic, and journalistic elites, is so dangerously delusive.
Indeed such disturbing survey results from a nationally representative sample of US mosques demonstrate Islam’s doctrinal and behavioral consistency across nearly 14 centuries, past as prologue to the present. OverÂ 17,000 jihad terror attacks have been committed by Muslims worldwideÂ since the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism committed against the United States itself on September 11, 2001. These data should remind us that there is just one historically relevant meaning ofÂ jihad despite contemporary apologetics. Jahada, the root of the word jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran. With 4 exceptions, all the other 36 usages in the Koran as understood by both the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam (including Abu Yusuf, Averroes, Ibn Khaldun, and Al Ghazali), and ordinary Muslimsâ€”meant and mean, “he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.”
The Muslim prophet Muhammad waged a series of proto-jihadÂ campaigns to subdue the Jews, Christians and pagans of Arabia. Numerous modern day pronouncements by leading Muslim theologians (see Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s “The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model,” 2001) confirm that Muhammad remains the major inspiration for jihadism today. Jihad has been pursued continuously since the 7th century advent of Islam, through the present, because it was institutionalized by seminal early Muslim theologians based on their interpretation of Koranic verses, and long chapters in the “hadith,” or acts and sayings of Muhammad. Within a century of Muhammad’s death, violent jihad conquestsâ€”achieved by religiously sanctioned massacre, pillage, enslavement, and deportationâ€”Islamized a vast swath of territory, extending from modern Pakistan to Portugal. The permanent goal of jihad is to bring humanity, en bloc, under the jurisdiction of Shariaâ€”a totalitarian system of religious governance, particularly oppressive to all non-Muslims, and women.
American Presidents John Quincy Adams and Theodore Roosevelt each possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institution ofÂ jihad warâ€”both its doctrinal basis, and history. Regardingjihad, Adams states in an 1829-30Â essay series,
…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
Roosevelt offered this historicalÂ perspective in 1916 on the consequences for Western civilization of succeeding, or failing to repel jihad conquerors:
The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization…[including] those of Charles Martel in the 8th century [over Arab jihadists] and those of JohnÂ Sobieski in the 17th century [over Ottoman Turkish jihadists]. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier [Martel] and the Polish king [Sobieski], the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any ‘social values’ whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence [is]…concerned.”
Also writing in 1916,Â C. Snouck Hurgronje, the great Dutch Orientalist, underscored how the jihad doctrine of world conquest, and the re-creation of a supranational Islamic Caliphate remained a potent force among the Muslim masses:
…it would be a gross mistake to imagine that the idea of universal conquest may be considered as obliterated…the canonists and the vulgar still live in the illusion of the days of Islam’s greatness. The legists continue to ground their appreciation of every actual political condition on the law of the holy war, which war ought never be allowed to cease entirely until all mankind is reduced to the authority of Islam-the heathen by conversion, the adherents of acknowledged Scripture [i.e., Jews and Christians] by submission.
Hurgronje further noted that although the Muslim rank and file might acknowledge the improbability of that goal “at present” (circa 1916), they were,
…comforted and encouraged by the recollection of the lengthy period of humiliation that the Prophet himself had to suffer before Allah bestowed victory upon his arms…
Thus even at the nadir of Islam’s political power, during the World War I era final disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, Hurgronje observed how
…the common people are willingly taught by the canonists and feed their hope of better days upon the innumerable legends of the olden time and the equally innumerable apocalyptic prophecies about the future. The political blows that fall upon Islam make less impression…than the senseless stories about the power of the Sultan of Stambul [Istanbul], that would instantly be revealed if he were not surrounded by treacherous servants, and the fantastic tidings of the miracles that Allah works in the Holy Cities of Arabia which are inaccessible to the unfaithful. The conception of the Khalifate [Caliphate] still exercises a fascinating influence, regarded in the light of a central point of union against the unfaithful (i.e., non-Muslims).
Nearly a century later, the preponderance of contemporary mainstream Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, apparently share with their murderous, jihad terror waging co-religionists from al-Qaeda the goal (if not necessarily supporting the gruesome means) of re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate. Polling data released April 24, 2007 in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interviewÂ survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007-1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians-reveal thatÂ 65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”â€”desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require aÂ strict[emphasis added] application of Sharia law in every Islamic country.”
Such Caliphate dreamsâ€”to be achieved through jihad conquestsâ€”have always been nurtured in mosques. The authoritative Brill Encyclopedia of Islam entry on “masdjid,” or mosque, highlights the mosque’s primary socio-political functionsâ€”including holding war councilsâ€”since the advent of the first Muslim polity under Islam’s prophet-warrior and ruler, Muhammad, in Medina:
The mosque was the place where believers assembled for prayer around the Prophet, where he delivered his addresses, which contained not only appeals for obedience to God but regulations affecting the social life of the community; from here he controlled the religious and political community of Islam…From the Medina mosque was developed the general type of mosque.
It was inherent in the character of Islam, that religion and politics could not be separated. The same individual was ruler and chief administrator in the two fields, and the same building, the mosque, was the center of gravity for both politics and religion. This relationship found expression in the fact that the mosque was placed in the center of the camp, while the ruler’s abode was built immediately adjacent to it, as in Medina.
[W]ar was inseparably associated with early Islam and the mosque was public meeting place of ruler and people…councils of war were held in the mosque.
Richard Mitchell’s seminalÂ analysis of the contemporary Muslim Brotherhoodâ€”the prototype modern fundamentalist organizationâ€”state’s simply, that from its advent,
Throughout the history of the [Muslim Brotherhood] movement the mosque continued to be its principal recruiting office.
This doctrinal and historical context explains why the “Sharia and Violence in American Mosques” study resultsâ€”while immediate, justifiable cause for alarmâ€”are unsurprising, even predictable. Moreover the current findings were augured by a qualitative assessment of US mosques by Sheikh Hisham Kabbani described in 1999, and the localized Detroit area survey of mosques conducted in 2003.
During a 1999 State Department presentationÂ entitled “Islamic Extremism: A Viable Threat to U.S. National Security” Sufi Sheikh Kabbani, who heads The Islamic Supreme Council of America, based upon personal visits to mosques across the US, asserted that 80% were run by “militant,” i.e. fundamentalist clerics.Â “The Detroit Mosque Study: Muslim Views on Policy and Religion,” was conducted by Ihsan Bagby an Associate Professor Â of Islamic Studies at thye University of Kentucky and a fellow at Â the Institute for Social Policy Understandingâ€”a Muslim organization. Data were gathered during the summer of 2003 and published online in 2004. These portentous findings were described on page 37 of theÂ report:
Mosque participants were asked, whether they agree or disagree with the statement, “Shari’ah should be the law of the land in Muslim countries?”
Apply Islamic Law in Muslim Lands
Strongly Agree â€” 59%
Somewhat Agree â€” 22%
(i.e., collectively = 81%)
Somewhat Disagree â€” 8%
Strongly Disagree â€” 3%
Don’t Know â€” 8%
Such data supposedly reflected the Detroit area Muslims views of “Islamic countries,” only. But given the intrinsic, universally supremacist nature of Islam and the Â global umma (i.e., as stated in KoranÂ 3:110, and the Orwellian-namedUniversal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, “Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah”), once an areaÂ has a Muslim majority it is assumed by Muslims that Islamic Law should prevailâ€”hence the “enclave” phenomenon, even here in the United States.
Publication of the “Sharia and Violence in American Mosques” study provides irrefragable evidence that the overwhelming majority of American mosquesâ€”consistent with mainstream Islamic doctrine and practice since the founding of the Muslim creedâ€”are inculcating jihadism with the goal of implementing Sharia here in America.
Finally, Whittaker Chambers’ autobiographical opus “Witness,” which chronicles his apostasy from Communism, offers these searing insights that elucidate how American Muslims could rationalize such seditious behaviorsâ€”consistent with Islamic doctrineâ€”and why this phenomenon remains largely incomprehensible to American non-Muslims, despite its existential threat to them.
What went on in the minds of those Americans…that made it possible to betray their country? Did none of them suffer a crisis of conscience? The question presupposes that whoever asks it has still failed to grasp that Communists mean exactly what they have been saying for a hundred years: they regard any government that is not Communist, including their own, merely as the political machine of a class whose power they have organized expressly to overthrow by all means, including violence. Therefore the problem of espionage never presents itself to them as problem of conscience, but a problem of operations…
The failure to understand that fact is part of the total failure of the West to grasp the nature of its enemy, what he wants, what he means to do and how he will go about doing it. It is part of the failure of the West to understand that it is at grips with an enemy having no moral viewpoint in common with itself, that two irreconcilable viewpoints and standards of judgment, two irreconcilable moralities, proceeding from two irreconcilable readings of man’s fate and future are involved, and hence their conflict is irrepressible.
Link to Jihadist Texts Distributed in Mosques Surveyed
Letter To Congress: Islamic Radicals? Or Fundamentalists?
byÂ D. C. Watson
Office of the Honorable Peter King, United States Congressman, 3rd Congressional District (New York)
June 12, 2011
Re: Scheduled hearings on “Radicalization” of Muslims in America
Dear Congressman King,
On June 20th, 2010 a letter was written to Congress concerning the widely unpopular idea of constructing a mosque in the shadow of the Ground Zero site in New York (a plan that thoughtful Muslims have also rejected). Contained in that letter were quotes from several Islamic religious leaders (Imams) in America:
Imam Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali
Masjid Al Islam mosque, Oakland, CA
“We must implement Islam as a totality (in which) Allah controls every place… the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress.”
Imam Abdul Alim Musa
Al Masjid mosque, Washington, D.C.
“If you don’t give us justice. If you don’t give us equality. If you don’t give us our share of America. If you don’t stay out of our way and leave us alone, we’re gonna burn America down.”
Imam Muhammad Al-Asi
Former Imam at the Washington, D.C. Islamic Center
“Now, all our imams, our public speakers, should be concentrating on militarizing the Muslim public … Only carrying arms will do this task.”
Imam Omar Shahin
Tucson, Arizona Islamic Center; President, North American Imams Federation; spokesman for the six ‘Flying Imams’
“A Muslim must try his best to abide by the rulings of Sharia (Islamic law) whenever possible as much as he can. He should not allow himself to be liable to those western laws that contradict the clear-cut Islamic rulings.”
Imam Siraj Wahhaj
Masjid Al-Taqwa mosque. Brooklyn, N.Y
“In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing left will be Islam.”
Imam Zaid Shakir
Former Muslim Chaplain at Yale University
“Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, since it is against the orders and ordainments of Allah.”
Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf:
“I do not believe in religious dialogue.”
A copy of this letter can be accessedÂ here.
Mosque at Ground Zero polling:
Further review of these statements show that they do not veer far at all from the following comments made by Islamic religious figures overseas or from remarks made by other prominent Muslims operating in the United States:
Imam Anjem Choudary
British Muslim cleric:
Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris
Sheikh ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza
“We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain.”
2) “America will collapse … we consider America to be our no. 1.”
3) “Allah will drown the little Pharaoh, the dwarf, the Pharaoh of all times, of our time, the American president. Allah will drown America in our seas, in our skies, in our land… America will be destroyed.”
Abu Hamza al-Masri
Imam in Britain
“The real weapons of mass destruction are the desire for martyrdom… Half a million martyrdom shaheed is enough for Muslims to control the whole of earth forever. In the end of the day, Islam must control earth, whether we like it or not.”
Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis
Imam at the Grand Mosque in Mecca
Jews: “The scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.”
Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed
Syrian-born British Muslim cleric
“We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians… Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value.”
Jordanian who has spoken at rallies held on American soil
“If fundamentalist Muslims stand up, it will be very easy for us to preside over this world once again.”
Australian Muslim Cleric
“I am telling you that my religion doesn’t tolerate other religion. It doesn’t tolerate. The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, has to be Islam.”
President of the Canadian Islamic Congress
“Any Israeli over age 18 is a legitimate target for suicide bombers because adult Israelis were required to do military service. They are part of the Israeli army, even if they have civilian clothes.”
Council on American Islamic Relations
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, 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…”
Council on American Islamic Relations
“Ultimately, we (Muslims) can never be full citizens of this country … because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country…”
Council on American Islamic Relations
“I am in support of the Hamas movement”
Dr. Esam Omeish
Muslim American Society
“You have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.”
Shukri Abu Baker (Convicted of funding Islamic terrorism)
Holy Land Foundation
“I swear by Allah that war is deception… We are fighting our enemy with a kind heart… Deceive, camouflage, pretend you are leaving while you’re walking that way. Deceive your enemy.”
Muslim Public Affairs Council
From the July 1999 edition of Al-Talib, the Muslim News magazine at UCLA, when Lekovic was one of the managing editors: “When we hear someone refer to the great mujahid Osama bin Laden as a ‘terrorist’, we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter…”
Sami Al Arian (Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide services to Islamic terrorists)
Former Professor, University of South Florida
“Let us continue the protests. Let us damn America. Let us damn Israel. Let us damn their allies until death. Mohammad is leader. The Qur’an is our constitution. Jihad is our path…”
University of California at Berkeley Lecturer
“Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine, we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country?”
Council on American Islamic Relations
“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…”
Julio Assad Pino
Associate professor of history at Kent State University in Ohio
Pino considers homicide bombers martyrs, the U.S. Armed Forces butchers, and is or was at one time part of an Internet blog that urges readers to join the Islamic resistance. Also in a Columbus Dispatch piece, Pino described himself as the “most dangerous Muslim in America.”
While this issue is addressed, the dangerous and witless practice of political correctness should be switched off. Unconditionally, the American people have a right to know when any type of threat to their way of life presents itself so that they can prepare to defend it.
Is it a “tiny minority” of “radicals” who have “perverted a great world religion” that all of these leaders in the Islamic communities here and abroad represent, or are they representative of Islamic fundamentalists who are simply adhering to their ideology as it has been prescribed?
As a free society we are a tolerant people. Like everything else, tolerance has its limits, so should rigid, racist, sexist supremacist ideologues with a history of committing violent acts against innocent human beings when they don’t get their way qualify?
If the United States Congress genuinely seeks unfiltered information regarding the issue at hand, it would greatly benefit itself and the nation by shunning the overbearing nonsense dispensed by organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations, and trading in the crocodile tears shed by the Congressman from Minnesota for the testimony of the individuals listed below, who are capable of answering any lingering questions regarding Islamic scripture, Shari’ah law, and documented historical facts:
Aayan Hirsi Ali
In closing, if the opportunity presents itself, please reiterate to your colleagues that this situation should not be viewed as a chance to score cheap political points, and that political affiliation aside, this is an American issue that impacts anyone who appreciates the freedoms offered here.
D.C. Watson, United States