McCarthy Knows Jihad

Great insight into what’s going on in America today.

Read the interview with Diana West on the Washington Examiner first:

Diana West: Islam and the Left share common aim

If what Andrew C. McCarthy calls “the freedom culture” somehow prevails in the West, it will be in great part due to such books as his excellent, ground-breaking new work, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.”

Islam and the left? Since this notion will raise some eyebrows, I asked McCarthy himself to elaborate on this and some other related questions.

Read it all!

Q: Why are Islam and the left, as you demonstrate in “The Grand Jihad,” not such strange bedfellows?

A: “For all their disagreements on matters like women’s rights, gay rights, and abortion, Islam and the left are in harmony on big-picture matters: They are authoritarian, totalitarian in the sense of wanting to control all aspects of human existence, virulently anti-capitalist, and regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective.

“Consequently, they have the same obstacle in common: our freedom culture — i.e., Western liberalism, U.S. constitutional republicanism, and their foundation, individual liberty.

“Historically, Islam and the left ally when there is a common enemy. But I’d stress that what I am talking about here is an alliance, not a merger. I am not claiming, as someone ridiculously suggested to me the day the book came out, that Barack Obama wants to impose sharia.”

That appropriately noted, the book does highlight the closely interweaving principles of Islam and the left, the umma (Islamic community) and ACORN, both of which “bore from within,” in Saul Alinsky’s phrase, to hollow out what we might think of as “the Unum” — as in E Pluribus Unum.

Linking these points, having documented President Obama’s career as a community organizer, his embrace of ACORN andhis radical associations, McCarthy writes:

“The common denominator [throughout Obama’s career] is a purpose to break down the Unum at its foundations, what he [Obama] called the ‘grass roots.’ For America, he plans an atom bomb. Or to be more precise, an atoms bomb: countless communities in cities and towns across the land, organized along Saul Alinsky’s brand of Marxism, into socialist enclaves.

“It fits hand and glove with Yusuf Qaradawi’s voluntary [Islamic] apartheid, the enclave strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Each atom smothers the individual freedom and enterprise that have defined the American character, replacing it with welfare states that prize dysfunction and reward the rabble-rousers.”

But we ignore this assault through “willful blindness,” to borrow the title of Andy McCarthy’s first book about his role as a federal prosecutor in convicting the “blind sheik” and his accomplices for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.

Instead, he observes in the book, our policymakers obsess over “one tactic, terrorism,” while ignoring terrorism’s goal: Islamization through the implementation of sharia, or Islamic law. I asked him to explain.

He replied: “From the beginning of my involvement in counterterrorism in the early nineties, I’ve been struck by the government’s portrayal of terrorists as beasts who kill for no better reason than to kill — as if the fact that they are brutal means that they are insane.

“Government does this as part of its narrative that terrorists couldn’t possibly be accurately representing a well-grounded interpretation of Islam, and therefore must be ‘perverting’ or ‘hijacking’ Islam, or must be traitors against the ‘true Islam’. …

“There is a logic to terrorism. It is jihad, the purpose of which is to implement, spread, defend or vindicate sharia, the Muslim legal code. Sharia is deemed in Islamist ideology to be the necessary precondition to Islamicizing a society.

“Once you realize that, you quickly realize that the same sharia-driven campaign can be waged, and is being waged, by nonviolent means, and that the violent and nonviolent methods are inextricably linked.

Read “The Grand Jihad” and so realize. And quickly!

Examiner columnist Diana West is syndicated nationally by United Media and is the author of “The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.”

By Andrew Bostom |

Lebanese negotiator Antoine Fattal (L), with Israeli negotiator David Kimche (centre), and US chief delegate Morris Draper (R) after the three completed their marathon negotiations that produced the agreement between Israel and Lebanon to begin the withdrawal of foreign troops. Syria would subsequently force Lebanon to abrogate the terms of this May 17, 1983 treaty.

Clarity on jihad, from Lebanese Law  Professor Antoine Fattal’s 1958 Le Statut Legal des non-Musulmans en Pays d’Islam, to accomplished former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy’s 2010 The Grand Jihad.

My review of McCarthy’s brilliant jeremiad makes clear how McCarthy follows, nobly, in Fattal’s footsteps.

Fattal Reaction—McCarthy Knows Jihad

A review of Andrew McCarthy’s “The Grand Jihad—How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” by Andrew Bostom

During an address on Thursday May 27, 2010 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan, the Obama administration’s lead counterterrorism adviser, provided a transparently bowdlerized perspective onjihad. Brennan’s statements were breathtaking in their profound cognitive dissonance regarding this uniquely Islamic institution, which continues to wreak daily havoc in our era.

Despite over 15,350 jihad terror attacks by Muslims worldwide, since the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism committed against the United States itself, on September 11, 2001, Brennan insisted,

Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.

Closing this willfully blind circle of “reasoning,” Brennan further asserted,

…describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism – that the United States is somehow at war against Islam

Brennan’s views—a dangerous concatenation of hard Left, Islamophilic cultural relativism, and the relentless, successful “Islamic dawa” efforts of generations of jihadists—represent the apotheosis of phenomena analyzed with uncompromising lucidity in Andrew McCarthy’s “The Grand Jihad.”

An accomplished former federal prosecutor, McCarthy convicted the infamous jihadist “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman for his role in orchestrating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and planning other acts of jihad terror. McCarthy recounted this prosecution in a prior book, “Willful Blindness,” which characterized the motivating Islamic ideology, goals, and methods of contemporary purveyors of violent jihad. He juxtaposed their openly declared jihad war campaign to the “conscious avoidance” of this threat by both America’s leadership elite, and its masses, in a game effort “…to expose this suicide ethos as it pertained to maintaining our security against the terrorist threat.” In “The Grand Jihad,” McCarthy extends these previous observations, and focuses upon the more pervasive threat of jihad’s non-violent manifestations, which he describes so appositely, as,

…the wolf, that comes, if not quite in sheep’s clothing, as nothing more dangerous than a sheepdog—is the more insidious one. …Very simply the purpose of jihad is not violence for its own sake. It is to pave the way for the imposition of sharia, the Muslim legal code and the necessary precondition for erecting an Islamic state and society. That is a peril we don’t want to deal with. Doing so would require confronting the brute fact that such a state would be antithetical to American democracy.

Central to McCarthy’s presentation—and containing key extracts eponymous to the book’s title—is a document whose contents were revealed during the Texas Holy Land Foundation jihad-terrorism funding trial. This internal Muslim Brotherhood statement dated May 22, 1991 was written by an acolyte of the Brotherhood’s major theoretician, lionized Qatari cleric, popular Al-Jazeera television personality, and head of the European Fatwa Council, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America,”  the document is indeed self-explanatory.

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 by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated  and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

The Grand Jihad’s masterful, remarkably compendious narrative elucidates how the Muslim Brotherhood program has taken shape, concretely, in America. McCarthy offers this summary assessment:

…this grand-jihad-by-sabotage has been underway for nearly a half century. Its bottom-up elements have stressed Islamist domination of Muslim education, community centers, and mosques. That means it is now raising, in our midst, its third generation of operatives and sympathizers.

And McCarthy amplifies this discussion by placing such developments within their global Islamic context, past and present, doctrinal and historical. He boldly introduces the reader to all of the following, without apologetics: how Islam’s understanding of freedom (hurriyya in Arabic) as “perfect slavery to Allah,” is antithetical to uniquely Western notions of individual liberty; the doubly totalitarian nature of Islamic jihadism and its accompanying goal of the universal imposition of Islamic Law (Shari’a) on all of humanity; and, finally, contemporary polling data from a rigorously conducted survey indicating that fully 2/3 of a representative sample of the entire global Muslim community (i.e., Muslims from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia) favor the “strict application” of the Shari’a, and the (re-)creation of a transnational Islamic superstate, or Caliphate.

McCarthy’s informed, forthright contemporary presentation recalls the intellectual and moral clarity—and urgency—of his legal antecedent, Antoine Fattal, expressed five decades earlier.

Nine years ago, via the wise and generous mentoring of Bat Ye’or and David Littman, I was introduced to the writings of Fattal. Perhaps best known for serving the Lebanese administration under Amin Gemayel, and negotiating aMay, 1983 Peace Treaty with Israel the Syrians later forced the Lebanese to abrogate, Antoine Fattal (d. 1987) was an esteemed Law Professor. Fattal also wrote Le Statut legal des non-Musulmans en pays d’Islam, which remains one of the seminal works describing what Bat Ye’or subsequently termed, “dhimmitude,” the legal status of non-Muslims, vanquished by jihad, and living under Islamic Law. Fattal’s treatise contains timeless insights on the jihad, and concludes with a very prescient warning about the real peril of this living, uniquely Islamic institution, sounded in 1958—the year Le Statut legal des non-Musulmans en pays d’Islam was published.*

Fattal’s meticulous study of the foundational Islamic texts and jurisprudence crystallized these classical formulations of the jihad as an open-ended, religiously-mandated war of aggression.

Dhimma (or dhimmitude)…is one of the results of the jihad or holy war.  Connected with the notion of jihad is the distinction between dar al-harb (territory or “house” of war) and dar al-islam (house of Islam).  The latter includes all territories subject to Muslim authority. It is in a state of perpetual war with the dar al-harb.  The inhabitants of the dar al-harb are harbis, who are not answerable to the Islamic authority and whose persons and goods are mubah, that is, at the mercy of Believers.  However, when Muslims are in a subordinate state, they can negotiate a truce with the harbis lasting no more than ten years, which they are obliged to revoke unilaterally as soon as they regain the upper hand, following the example of the Prophet after Hudaibiyya

After similarly detailed attention to the doctrinal and historical legacy of jihad-imposed dhimmitude, Fattal observed,

The dhimmi, we might say, is a second-class citizen. If they [the ruling Muslims] tolerate him it is a calculated step, whether because they cherish the hope of converting him or for material reasons, because they force him to shoulder virtually the entire burden of taxation. They provide a place for him in the state, but not without reminding him continually of his inferior status. They prevent him from occupying high positions in society, and if by merit or intrigue he manages to climb to such places everything conspires to relegate him once again to obscurity. If the dhimmi acquires an independent legal status or privileges associated with his personal position, if he is permitted even his own courts, it is only because he cannot share with the Faithful the advantages of their own justice, which is essentially religious. In no case is the dhimmi the equal of a Muslim. He is condemned to social inequality and forms part of a despised caste: inequality so far as his personal rights are concerned, inequality in taxation, and inequality before the law, since his testimony is neither accepted by the Muslim courts of justice nor even, for the same minor crime, is the punishment the same…No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis...

And Fattal concluded his scholarly 1958 analysis with this warning, which anticipates by 50-years McCarthy’s even more pressing admonition to abandon our delusional complacency, now.

Even today, the study of the jihad is part of the curriculum of all the Islamic institutes. In the universities of Al-Azhar, Najaf, and Zaitoune, students are still taught that the holy war is a binding prescriptive decree, pronounced against the Infidels, which will only be revoked with the end of the world… The (Muslim) Prophet did in fact say… and his words have not expired: “I came with the sword…Jihad is engaged now and to the day when the last handful of men of my nation will be called to fight the ‘Antichrist.’”  Islam will not emerge from this impasse until the day when its scholars take the initiative to open wide the doors of ijtihad.

Andrew McCarthy closes “The Grand Jihad” with an aptly trenchant commentary on Army Chief-of-Staff General George W. Casey’s absurd, yet pathognomonic observations following Nidal Hasan’s act of mass-murdering jihad terror at Fort Hood. Epitomizing how the toxic amalgam of cultural relativism and Islamophilic jihad-denial fostered by Islamic propaganda has infested even our highest military institutions, Casey whimpered, during an NBC News interview, “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty I think that’s worse.” McCarthy’s rejoinder, notes the opposite views of Hasan’s jihad martyrdom operation taken by modern violent jihadists, and their broad-based ideological, if not tactical supporters within the entire global Muslim community, represented by the Organization of the Islamic Conference—and Koran 3:110.

They believe they are, as the Organization of the Islamic Conference put it [citing Koran 3:110], “the Islamic Umma that Allah made the best Nation.” They intend to fight to the end because they believe they will win, and that they fully deserve to win.

In the years just prior to his September, 1982 assassination, Bashir Gemayel, the late Lebanese President whose surviving administration (under his brother, Amin) Antoine Fattal served, implored Lebanon’s indigenous non-Muslims not to accept their dhimmitude (see pp. 43,150,219,236,238,290,298,411), while repeatedly urging Western governments to defend the core values of Western civilization (see pp.12,15-16) against encroaching jihadism. Andrew McCarthy’s brilliant jeremiad “The Grand Jihad” echoes Gemayel’s sentiments, updated for our era. Let us pray McCarthy’s clarion call is heeded.

(*English translation of extracts from Fattal’s Le Statut legal des non-Musulmans en pays d’Islam, Beirut, 1958, derive from A.E. Vacalopoulos, The Greek Nation, 1453-1669,  New Brunswick, 1976,  David Littman and Bat Ye’or,Protected Peoples Under Islam, Geneva, 1976. and my own The Legacy of Jihad, Amherst, 2005. Additional material was kindly translated by  Nidra Poller.)

3 thoughts on “McCarthy Knows Jihad”

  1. Oh crap!

    Maybe Israel should hunker down, build the deepest bomb shelters possible, to withstand a nuclear attack, hide there until it is all over.

    It appears the whole world is against them right now.
    I feel for Israel as the brace for another repeat of the Final Solution.
    Anti-semitism is spreading to all regions and peoples.
    It makes me sick to my stomach to think this could happen in my lifetime.
    The Democratic National Socialist Party still lives and is about to impose it’s evil ideologies on all kafirs under a Fourth Reich.
    Our only hope is to fight for our lives, I guess. But Israel is running out of options as the enemies gain world sympathy.
    The United Nations is helping raise this ire for the Jews and it is my belief that the UN should be demolished and all so-called diplomats and ambassadors of “peace” be sent back to their tyrannical countries.

  2. Never lose hope.

    Those who have tried to destroy Jews or Israel, have been totally destroyed themselves.

  3. McCarthy: “We won’t have an effective strategy for dealing with the Ummah … until we commit to understanding what it is rather than imagining what it could be”

    Another crucial point: “Americans were once proud to declare that their unalienable rights came from their Creator, the God of Judeo-Christian scripture. Today we sometimes seem embarrassed by this fundamental conceit of our founding. We prefer to trace our conceptions of liberty, equality, free will, freedom of conscience, due process, privacy, and proportional punishment to a humanist tradition, haughty enough to believe we can transcend the transcendent and arrive at a common humanity.”

    Many more instructive observations follow below, in an articulate analysis of the reality of the Islamic supremacist vision that still seeks to dominate the globe, and of the roots and folly of foreign policy based on wishful thinking. “The OIC and the Caliphate: The Islamic agenda is not coexistence, but dominion,” by Andrew C. McCarthy for the National Review Online, February 26 (thanks toJW):

    The Organization of the Islamic Conference is the closest thing in the modern world to a caliphate. It is composed of 57 members (56 sovereign states and the Palestinian Authority), joining voices and political heft to pursue the unitary interests of the ummah, the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims. Not surprisingly, the OIC works cooperatively with the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most extensive and important Islamist organization, and one that sees itself as the vanguard of a vast, grass-roots movement — what the Brotherhood itself calls a “civilizational” movement.
    Muslims are taught to think of themselves as a community, a single Muslim Nation. “I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini famously said of his own country in 1980, even as he consolidated his power there, even as he made Iran the point of his revolutionary spear. “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah.” Muslims were not interested in maintaining the Westphalian system of nation states. According to Khomeini, who was then regarded by East and West as Islam’s most consequential voice, any country, including his own, could be sacrificed in service of the doctrinal imperative that “Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
    Because of that doctrinal imperative, the caliphate retains its powerful allure for believers. Nevertheless, though Islamists are on the march, it has somehow become fashionable to denigrate the notion that the global Islamic caliphate endures as a mainstream Islamic goal.
    It was only a week ago that close to 2 million Muslims jammed Tahrir Square to celebrate the triumphant return to Egypt of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, a Khomeini-esque firebrand who pulls no punches about Islam’s goal to “conquer America” and “conquer Europe.” Yet, to take these threats seriously is now to be dismissed as a fringe lunatic, a Luddite too benighted to grasp that American principles reflect universally held truths — truths to which the ummah, deep down, is (so we are told) every bit as committed as we are.
    The caliphate is an institution of imperial Islamic rule under sharia, Muslim law. Not content with empire, Islam anticipates global hegemony. Indeed, mainstream Islamic ideology declares that such hegemony is inevitable, holding to that belief every bit as sincerely as the End of History crowd holds to its conviction that its values are everyone’s values (and the Muslims are only slightly less willing to brook dissent). For Muslims, the failure of Allah’s creation to submit to the system He has prescribed is a blasphemy that cannot stand.
    The caliphate is an ideal now, much like the competing ideal of a freedom said to be the yearning of every human heart. Unlike the latter ideal, the caliphate had, for centuries, a concrete existence. It was formally dissolved in 1924, a signal step in Kemal Atatürk’s purge of Islam from public life in Turkey. Atatürk, too, thought he had an early line on the End of History. One wonders what he’d make of Erdogan’s rising Islamist Turkey.
    What really dissolved the Ottoman caliphate was not anything so contemporary as a “freedom agenda,” or a “battle for hearts and minds.” It was one of those quaint military wars, waged under the evidently outdated notion that Islamic enemies were not friends waiting to happen — that they had to be defeated, since they were not apt to be persuaded.
    It was, I suppose, our misfortune in earlier times not to have had the keen minds up to the task of vanquishing “violent extremism” by winning a “war of ideas.” We had to make do with dullards like Winston Churchill, who actually thought — get this — that there was a difference worth observing between Islamic believers and Islamic doctrine.
    “Individual Muslims,” Churchill wrote at the turn of the century, demonstrated many “splendid qualities.” That, however, did not mean Islam was splendid or that its principles were consonant with Western principles. To the contrary, Churchill opined, “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” Boxed in by rigid sharia, Islam could only “paralyse the social development of those who follow it.” Reason had evolved the West, but Islam had revoked reason’s license in the tenth century, closing its “gates of ijtihad” — its short-lived tradition of introspection. Yet, sharia’s rigidity did not render Islam “moribund.” Churchill recognized the power of the caliphate, of the hegemonic vision. “Mohammedanism,” he concluded, remained “a militant and proselytising faith.” […]
    Muslims, of course, understood the implausibility of achieving such dominance in the near term. Still, Hurgronje elaborated, the faithful 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.” So even as the caliphate lay in ruins, the conviction that it would rise again remained a “fascinating influence” and “a central point of union against the unfaithful.”
    Today, the OIC is Islam’s central point of union against the unfaithful. Those who insist that the 1,400-year-old dividing line between Muslims and non-Muslims is ephemeral, that all we need is a little more understanding of how alike we all really are, would do well to consider the OIC’s Cairo Declaration of 1990. It is the ummah’s “Declaration of Human Rights in Islam,” proclaimed precisely because Islamic states reject the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights promulgated by the United Nations under the guidance of progressives in the United States and the West. That is, the leaders of the Muslim world are adamant that Western principles are not universal.
    They are quite right about that. The Cairo Declaration boasts that Allah has made the Islamic ummah “the best community . . . which gave humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization.” It is the “historical role” of the ummah to “civilize” the rest of the world — not the other way around. […]
    The Declaration makes abundantly clear that this civilization is to be attained by adherence to sharia. “All rights and freedoms” recognized by Islam “are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah,” which “is the only source of reference for [their] explanation or clarification.” Though men and women are said by the Declaration to be equal in “human dignity,” sharia elucidates their very different rights and obligations — their basic inequality. Sharia expressly controls freedom of movement and claims of asylum. The Declaration further states that “there shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in Shari’ah” — a blatant reaffirmation of penalties deemed cruel and unusual in the West. And the right to free expression is permitted only insofar as it “would not be contrary to the principles of Shari’ah” — meaning that Islam may not be critically examined, nor will the ummah abide any dissemination of “information” that would “violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values, or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society, or weaken its faith.”
    Americans were once proud to declare that their unalienable rights came from their Creator, the God of Judeo-Christian scripture. Today we sometimes seem embarrassed by this fundamental conceit of our founding. We prefer to trace our conceptions of liberty, equality, free will, freedom of conscience, due process, privacy, and proportional punishment to a humanist tradition, haughty enough to believe we can transcend the transcendent and arrive at a common humanity. But regardless of which source the West claims, the ummah rejects it and claims its own very different principles — including, to this day, the principle that it is the destiny of Islam not to coexist but to dominate.
    We won’t have an effective strategy for dealing with the ummah, and for securing ourselves from its excesses, until we commit to understanding what it is rather than imagining what it could be….
    Read it all.

Comments are closed.