Serious Threat to National Security

Michael Copeland reports on the latest from Belgium about the threat posed by a “radical” imam.

Serious Threat to National Security

by Michael Copeland

The imam of Belgium’s largest mosque posed a “serious threat to national security,” Belgian security services advised. The mosque is in the now notorious Brussels suburb of Molenbeek. This is the heavily Islamised no go zone where fellow Muslims shielded the surviving terrorist of the Bataclan from law enforcement for weeks on end. The imam, a Moroccan named Toujgani, had resided in the country for forty years (without, typically, mastering French or Dutch). He was ordered to leave.

Migration Secretary Sammy Mahdi explained:

“In the past, we gave too much leeway to radical preachers. This man was probably the most influential preacher in Belgium. With this decision, we are making a difference and giving a clear signal: we will not tolerate those who divide and threaten our national security.”

The news article from Remix goes on to explain:

“Toujgani’s preachings of conservative Islam are consistent with those endorsed by the controversial Muslim Brotherhood movement, an organization which calls for the gradual Islamization of Western society, and one which the imam is reportedly associated with.”

An imam a threat to national security? How can this be? The article does not explain, but here are the clues: radical preachers… those who divide… conservative Islam… the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Radical”… “conservative”

The word “radical” is persistently misused by the media, as if it denotes someone who has a deliberately adverse or wrong-headed pro-violence idea of his cause. This is an error. “Radical” comes from the Latin radix, a root. An imam who is faithful to the roots of Islam, its source texts, is the one being radical. The media also use the word “conservative” when describing such Islamic preachers. There is, of course, no “conservative” Islam or “progressive” Islam. As Erdogan says, “Islam is Islam, and that is that.” Both “radical” and “conservative” are media cover terms for the advocating of violence.

Advocating or inciting violence is a criminal offence in Europe. A Jamaican imam in Birmingham, UK, Abdullah al-Faisal, was recorded by Channel 4 preaching, “As for the Jews, you kill them physically” (meaning “by hand”). He was sentenced to prison and afterwards deported. The imam in Belgium may well have incited violence. After all, the Koran, all of which forms part of Islamic law, does instruct concerning kafirs, non-Muslims, “Kill them wherever you find them” (2:191, 9:5).

“Those who divide”

When the Migration Secretary spoke of “those who divide” he was presumably alluding to social cohesion, and confirming that the now deported imam, far from contributing to it, was encouraging division. Is it possible, though, to have Islam without social division? The Koran — part of Islamic law — supplies the answer.

Islam’s basic tenets insist on social division. Muslims are “the best of peoples” (Koran 3:110), while kafirs, non-Muslims, are “unclean” (9:28), “the vilest of beasts”, “the worst of creatures” (98:6). Muslims are instructed, “Do not take them as allies” (4:89). Further, they are commanded, “Let them find harshness in you” (9:123). Muslims are “merciful to each other, and ruthless to the kafir” (3:85). The kafir is “ever to you a clear enemy” (4:101). Islam instructs its adherents to hate kafirs. The “excellent pattern” praised in Koran 60:4 is “between us and you enmity and hatred forever”. This is the Islamic doctrine of Al Walaa Wal Baraa — Friendship and Enmity. Islam’s texts command fighting and killing, and mandate violence towards kafirs. Al Azhar in Cairo instructs that jihad is a “permanent war institution” against Jews, Christians and pagans — kafirs.

There is no escaping the fact that Islam dictates social division — Islamic Apartheid. It is not, in fact, a preacher’s choice. A preacher true to his sources can preach no other: he is not authorised to vary Islam’s message. Otherwise he would be guilty of denying the Koran, a capital offence in Islamic law.

The imam in Molenbeek, though, was more than an obstacle to social cohesion: he was “a threat to national security.” This is a much more serious accusation. No further details were given, so some surmise is called for. The source is almost certainly his reported association with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood declares its aim in five statements that make up its motto:

Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur’an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

The article above describes the Brotherhood as “controversial”. This is mistaken. The Brotherhood is quintessentially Muslim, espousing core Islamic tenets. It does not conform, of course, to the Western fantasy of Nice Peaceful Islam, so this provides the reason for the label “controversial”. That view is hopelessly erroneous. Western politicians have confidently assured their peoples ad nauseam that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”, but they are wrong. They have been successfully deceived by Islamic advisors employing Islam’s “Permissible Lying”, taqiyya, to give its Arabic name. Islam does not mean peace: it means submission.

A member of the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA was arrested after exhibiting suspect behaviour by carefully filming the structural elements of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. His home in Virginia was searched by police. In a secret sub-basement they found a stash of Arabic documents. Amongst them was “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America”. Its principal stated aim is “Destroying the Western Cilvilisation from within”. Here is where the “serious threat to national security” posed by the imam in Brussels is likely to originate. “Islam is not like Christianity,” explained Mullah Krekar, “Our Islam is political.”

The United States Congress held a hearing in July of 2018 entitled “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat”. The subsequent publication says:

The Muslim Brotherhood has been militant from its very beginning. Its founder, Hassan al-Banna, who started the group in 1928, said that, quote: “Jihad is an obligation from Allah and [sic] every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded.” And in a book titled “The Way of Jihad” he wrote: “Jihad means the fighting of the unbelievers and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam, including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship, and smashing their idols,” end quote.

Deploring “the radicalism of it [sic] hateful ideology”, Congress determined that

“the Brotherhood constitutes a real threat for the national security interests of the United States.”

A weighty consideration follows from this. It is almost certainly because of his connection to the Muslim Brotherhood that the imam in Belgium posed a serious threat to national security, just as Congress considers it does for the USA. The Muslim Brotherhood is Islamic through and through: it has no extraneous influences defining it. It preaches pure Islam.

Here is the inevitable conclusion: Islam poses a serious threat to national security.


For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.

6 thoughts on “Serious Threat to National Security

  1. Interestingly, Sweden is also deporting imams.
    Swedish security services deported an imam suspected of being a recruiter for ISIS last week after a judge ruled he posed a threat to national security.
    It is alleged 14 people connected to him travelled to fight for ISIS.
    Five top Muslim clerics, including a school chancellor, were detained following a series of raids linked to suspected extremism in Sweden in 2019.

  2. Hear a previous leader of the Muslim Brotherhood:

    “The jihad will lead to smashing Western civilization and replacing it with Islam which will dominate the world.”

    — Muhammad Mahdi Akef, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood 2004-10

  3. Deporting imams is nothing but virtue signalling and evading the problem at this stage of the Jihad.

  4. Wasn’t Islam legally sanctioned until 1948 when the Supreme Court declared it to be a religion? Brown v. Board of Education?

  5. “He is a travelling radicaliser and recruiter”, said Magnus Ranstorp.
    The word “radicaliser” here seems to mean “one who encourages violence”.
    Conventionally this is thought of as aberrant, but this is the big error (deception). Islam in its root (radical) source texts does indeed mandate violence. It is ordinary doctrine.

Comments are closed.