One of the primary documents [pdf] used in the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008 was the “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group”. It was written on May 22, 1991 by Mohamed Akram, and gave a brief description of the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the 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 so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. […] It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is…
The above is a clear declaration that the front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood — CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, NAIT, MSA, IIIT, etc. — intended to “bore from within” and overthrow American constitutional government by subverting our own institutions.
Unlike the Communist infiltrators from six decades ago, the Ikhwan’s infiltrators have given us a specific and public glimpse into their precise strategy. This time, unfortunately, we have no equivalent of the House Un-American Activities Committee to stand sentinel over our Constitution and our way of life. In the early 1950s the Red Menace met a formidable resistance from our government, our media, and American society at large. The Green Menace, in contrast, is welcomed with open arms by many fools and opportunists among our elites. Media outlets, academics, the Pentagon, the State Department, and our national security apparatus eagerly accept agents of the Muslim Brotherhood as advisors and consultants.
The latest spectacular success for the Muslim Brotherhood is the proposal by the Cordoba Initiative to build a “community center” and mosque a few yards from Ground Zero. The majority of the country’s political establishment — and not just the Obama administration and the Democratic Party — have either spoken out in support of the Ground Zero mosque or maintain a studied neutrality on the issue. Nothing could better illustrate the effectiveness of all those decades of preparation by the Ikhwan in America.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, his wife Daisy Khan, and the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) are the motive force behind the Cordoba Initiative. But who funds them? And what other groups are they associated with?
Yesterday’s investigative report by VH on the Dutch government’s funding of ASMA gives some background on the intricate web linking the various Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to the Cordoba Initiative. One of the initiatives highlighted by the report is the “Shariah Index Project”, which was announced last year by Imam Rauf. He described the purpose of the Shariah Index:
Many countries are Islamic, but some may be more Islamic than others. Now moves are afoot to rate nations according to how closely they adhere to the principles of Islam.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder and President of Cordoba Initiative briefed a select group of scholars and IIIT staff on Friday, December 19, 2008 on the Shari’ah Index Project, a pioneering effort which aims at developing an index based on Maqasid al Shari’ah for the purpose of measuring the performance of Muslim countries in relation to the implementation of Shari’ah.
Since its inception in 2006, the Shari’ah Index Project — which is directed out of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia — has generated the support of many Muslim countries and organizations as well as prominent Muslim scholars and leaders worldwide.
The index itself is being developed through the joint efforts of the prominent scholars and social scientists from different parts of the Muslim world. Upon completion, it will be used primarily in Muslim countries through polling of sampled populations via interviews and surveys to be conducted by Gallup USA. The data then will be analyzed and findings and conclusion will be made available to policy makers, the media and the public at large.
Accompanying Imam Rauf were Dr. Jasser Auda, member of the Advisory Council of Scholars for the Project and expert on Maqasid, Courtney Erving, the Executive Director, and her assistant Irfana Hashimi. Dr. Abubaker al-Shingeiti, Regional Director of IIIT, welcomed the guests and pledged cooperation and support from IIIT to the Project. [emphasis added]
Notice the Malaysian connection with the Shariah Index project and IIIT. This is no surprise, given that Feisal Abdul Rauf was educated in Malaysia. Some of Mr. Rauf’s Malay-language writings may not be in complete accord with the ecumenical bromides he regularly churns out nowadays in English. As VH mentions in his endnotes,
The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1981, is an Islamic “think tank” in the Washington area, dedicated to what it describes as “the Islamization of knowledge” [NRO].
The IIIT is co-editor of the American version of “Seruan Azan dari Puing WTC; Dakwah Islam die Jatung Amerika Pasca 9/11” (Prayer Call from the rubble of the World Trade Center; Islamic Da’wa in the heart of America post-9/11), written by Faisal Rauf. The cleaned up U.S. edition is called “What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America”.
This IIIT has a far-reaching involvement in supporting Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood which, according to their charter, has destroying Israel as ultimate goal. The IIIT is listed by the U.S. Department of Justice as co-conspirator in a crucial case concerning the financing of terrorism [by the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development].
Imam Faisal Rauf has more ties to controversial Islamic organizations. In 2007 for example, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf promoted his book “Seruan Azan dari Puing WTC” at a meeting in Bandung, Indonesia of Hizb ut Tahrir, a fascist Islamic organization
withwhich strives to establish the sharia globally and is banned in several countries.
Taking all of the above into account, we can see that the Shariah Index is specifically designed to “destroy the Western civilization from within”. By examining the Constitution and then declaring it “Shariah-compliant”, the Muslim Brotherhood would be taking a first step towards the stealth implementation of Shariah in the United States.
The big question remains: How much of this is being funded and pushed by our own government? Could the State Department, for example — which is a known locus of pro-Arab sentiment — be a co-sponsor of the Shariah Index?
I discussed this issue last night in an email exchange with Christine Brim of the Center for Security Policy, and here’s what she had to say:
It’s just my suspicion that the State Department is funding this directly or indirectly — it seems like a State/Ikhwan/Muslim Engagement type of operation.
However, State-funded or not, it’s definitely designed by smart systems analysts, which is what Jasser Auda is. It would be fun to diagram it, but here’s a quick summary in words:
Constitution vs. Shariah = Conflict of two rule sets
Q: How can this be resolved without war? That is, following the rules of Sun Tzu, how could victory be achieved without war, when there is a clearly defined conflict space?
A: Create a system design goal that “there is no conflict,” and then redefine the situation variables to achieve that goal — to eliminate the conflict.
Q: Can you change the left side of the conflict — the Constitution?
A: No, the Constitution cannot be redefined — yet — to incorporate Shariah. That is being done in Muslim countries thanks to Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, Elena Kagan, Noah Feldman (adding Shariah clauses into secular constitutions).
But you can’t do that in the U.S.A. Not yet, anyway. People will notice.
Q: So what to do, what to do?
A: Change the right side of the conflict.
Redefine the variable that you can control: relax the constraints on Shariah.
Rauf and Auda can control what is called Shariah in western PR venues. They can temporarily redefine Shariah so it can incorporate the Constitution, so that the variable for Shariah is the same as that for the Constitution.
Or, more accurately, they are saying the values placed within the Shariah variable and the Constitution variable are the same — so if the values are the same, the variable must be the same. Bad logic, but quite slick from a design standpoint and a taqiyya perspective.
And that is how they introduce it into the UK and the USA. There is no conflict with being Shariah-compliant, because the US laws and institutions are all already Shariah compliant! We silly Westerners just didn’t realize it.
In fact, Rauf and Auda will tell the Europeans and the Americans that in the West we’re actually living a cooler, hipper, more virtuous, more democratic, more human-rights-oriented Shariah than those nasty brutish authoritarian countries in the Middle East.
There, that didn’t hurt, did it? In fact it felt good. We were complimented.
“Your Shariah is so universally Western, so unbelievably egalitarian, so social justicy-juicy, so progressive!”
And what we thought was a conflict turns out to have been resolved — gosh, what a relief after 1400 years of jihad!
Hey, that’s almost like conflict resolution isn’t it?
Or game theory, applied with precision?
But mostly it just feels nice and flattering and reduces the fear of Shariah and removes the pain of anxiety — but with an intellectual twist that will feel like an aperçu, when in fact it is a solipsism.
No more pain, no more fear. Like an axe to the spinal cord.
The Muslim Brotherhood is six or eight moves ahead of us in the Islamization chess game. In fact, those of us who are not asleep on the sidelines are convinced we’re playing checkers or tiddly-winks. Boy, are we good at it! What great checkers strategists we are!
The enemy is well on his way to victory, and we’re helping him out by sabotaging our miserable house by our own hands.