Misunderstanding the Enemy: the Islamic Threat and the U.S. Media

The Islamic States of America?

by Daniel Pipes

FrontPageMagazine.com
September 23, 2004

The hardest thing for Westerners to understand is not that a war with militant Islam is underway but that the nature of the enemy's ultimate goal. That goal is to apply the Islamic law (the Shari‘a) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur'an.

This aspiration is so remote and far-fetched to many non-Muslims, it elicits more guffaws than apprehension. Of course, that used to be the same reaction in Europe, and now it's become widely accepted that, in Bernard Lewis' words, "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century."

Because of the American skepticism about Islamist goals, I postponed publishing an article on this subject until immediately after 9/11, when I expected receptivity to the subject would be greater (it was published in November 2001 as "The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America"). I argued there that

The Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people—many times more numerous than the agents of Osama bin Ladin—who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States and the desire, ultimately, to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant Islam.

The receptivity indeed was greater, but still the idea of an Islamist takeover remains unrecognized in establishment circles – the U.S. government, the old media, the universities, the mainline churches.

Therefore, reading "A rare look at secretive Brotherhood in America," in the Chicago Tribune on Sept. 19 caused me to startle. It's a long analysis that draws on an exclusive interview with Ahmed Elkadi, the Muslim Brotherhood leader in the United States during 1984-94, plus other interviews and documentation. In it, the authors (Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Sam Roe, and Laurie Cohen) warily but emphatically acknowledge the Islamists' goal of turning the United States into an Islamic state.

Over the last 40 years, small groups of devout Muslim men have gathered in homes in U.S. cities to pray, memorize the Koran and discuss events of the day. But they also addressed their ultimate goal, one so controversial that it is a key reason they have operated in secrecy: to create Muslim states overseas and, they hope, someday in America as well. …

Brotherhood members emphasize that they follow the laws of the nations in which they operate. They stress that they do not believe in overthrowing the U.S. government, but rather that they want as many people as possible to convert to Islam so that one day—perhaps generations from now—a majority of Americans will support a society governed by Islamic law.

This Brotherhood approach is in keeping with my observation that the greater Islamist threat to the West is not violence – flattening buildings, bombing railroad stations and nightclubs, seizing theaters and schools – but the peaceful, legal growth of power through education, the law, the media, and the political system.

The Tribune article explains how, when recruiting new members, the organization does not reveal its identity but invites candidates to small prayer meetings where the prayer leaders focus on the primary goal of the Brotherhood, namely "setting up the rule of God upon the Earth" (i.e., achieving Islamic hegemony). Elkadi describes the organization's strategic, long-term approach: "First you change the person, then the family, then the community, then the nation."

His wife Iman is no less explicit; all who are associated with the Brotherhood, she says, have the same goal, which is "to educate everyone about Islam and to follow the teachings of Islam with the hope of establishing an Islamic state."

In addition to Elkadi, the article features information from Mustafa Saied (about whose Muslim Brotherhood experiences the Wall Street Journal devoted a feature story in December 2003, without mentioning the organization's Islamist goals). Saied, the Tribune informs us, says

he found out that the U.S. Brotherhood had a plan for achieving Islamic rule in America: It would convert Americans to Islam and elect like-minded Muslims to political office. "They're very smart. Everyone else is gullible," Saied says. "If the Brotherhood puts up somebody for an election, Muslims would vote for him not knowing he was with the Brotherhood."

Citing documents and interviews, the Tribune team notes that the secretive Brotherhood, in an effort to acquire more influence, went above ground in Illinois in 1993, incorporating itself as the Muslim American Society. The MAS, headquartered in Alexandria, Va. and claiming 53 chapters across the United States engages in a number of activities. These include summer camps, a large annual conference, websites, and the Islamic American University, a mainly correspondence school in suburban Detroit that trains teachers and imams.

Of course, the MAS denies any intent to take over the country. One of its top officials, Shaker Elsayed, insists that

MAS does not believe in creating an Islamic state in America but supports the establishment of Islamic governments in Muslim lands. The group's goal in the United States, he says, "is to serve and develop the Muslim community and help Muslims to be the best citizens they can be of this country." That includes preserving the Muslim identity, particularly among youths.

Notwithstanding this denial, the Tribune finds MAS goals to be clear enough:

Part of the Chicago chapter's Web site is devoted to teens. It includes reading materials that say Muslims have a duty to help form Islamic governments worldwide and should be prepared to take up arms to do so. One passage states that "until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful." Another one says that Western secularism and materialism are evil and that Muslims should "pursue this evil force to its own lands" and "invade its Western heartland." [links added by me, DP]

In suburban Rosemont, Ill., several thousand people attended MAS' annual conference in 2002 at the village's convention center. One speaker said, "We may all feel emotionally attached to the goal of an Islamic state" in America, but it would have to wait because of the modest Muslim population. "We mustn't cross hurdles we can't jump yet."

These revelations are particularly striking, coming as they do just days after a Washington Post article titled "In Search Of Friends Among The Foes," which reports how some U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials believe the Muslim Brotherhood's influence "offers an opportunity for political engagement that could help isolate violent jihadists." Graham Fuller is quoted saying that "It is the preeminent movement in the Muslim world. It's something we can work with." Demonizing the Brotherhood, he warns, "would be foolhardy in the extreme." Other analysts, such as Reuel Gerecht, Edward Djerejian, and Leslie Campbell, are quoted as being in agreement with this outlook.

But it is a deeply wrong and dangerous approach. Even if the Muslim Brotherhood is not specifically associated with violence in the United States (as it has been in other countries, including Egypt and Syria), it is deeply hostile to the United States and must be treated as one vital component of the enemy's assault force.

From: American Muslim Magazine, published by the Muslim American Society

Note there is an implied acceptance of terrorism as an acceptable means of political expression and there is no mention of alternative, successful approaches such as Czechoslovakia's "Velvet Revolution" or Gandhi's Indian independence movement. As far as I am concerned Islam is not, and never has been, a legitimate religion. It is a violent, political ideology that was established by the sword. It has simply changed tactics. I urge all concerned Americans to become involved. Check out the Muslim American Society. Subscribe to its propaganda. Arm yourselves with knowledge and vigilance. And of course, as with all things evil in this world, terrorism was invented by the Jews according to this spokesman for benevolent Islam.

Reaching the Roots of Terrorism

Omer bin Abdullah

Terrorism enables the weak to confront the strong, and thus has an enduring appeal to those who are dissatisfied with the status quo. In addition, a relatively inexpensive action can have spectacular results, as we have seen in the aftermath of 9/11.

The Changing Nature of Terrorism

More than 2,000 years ago, Jewish Zealots assassinated their targets, the Roman occupiers, in broad daylight, often in crowded market places or on feast days. This was done to convey their message to the Roman occupiers and their Jewish sympathizers and collaborators. Between 1090 and 1272, the Assassins used similar tactics against the Christian Crusaders.

Until the French Revolution (1789-99), terrorism was justified mainly by religion. This situation changed, however, as nationalism, anarchism, Marxism, and other secular political movements emerged during the 1800s. Modern terrorism, initially antimonarchical, was embraced by rebels and constitutionalists during the late stages of the French Revolution and in Russia by the People’s Will organization (1878-81). The revolutionary, antigovernment orientation of this latter group became the model for future terrorists. By selecting targets representing the state’s oppressive instruments of power, its members embraced “propaganda by deed” to educate the public about state-imposed inequities. One of its members assassinated Tsar Alexander II in March 1881.

On June 28, 1914, a young Bosnian Serb radical named Gavrilo Princip sought to free his country from Austrian rule by assassinating Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand. This act is usually credited with triggering World War I. His militant student group had close ties to the intelligence service and military forces of Serbia, Austria’s archenemy. Like many contemporary state sponsors of terrorism, Serbia provided arms, training, intelligence, and other assistance to revolutionary movements in neighboring nations.

During the 1920s-30s, terrorism became more associated with dictatorial states. The word terrorism was used to describe the wanton violence and intimidation inflicted by the Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the totalitarian USSR. Recent history records the use of such measures by the military dictatorships of Argentina, Chile, and Greece during the 1970s. But these state-sanctioned acts of violence are more generally termed terror to distinguish them from violence committed by nonstate entities. The word terrorism is generally reserved for acts committed by groups outside of government.

After World War II, terrorism reverted to its previous revolutionary associations. During the 1940s-50s, terrorism was used for violence perpetrated by indigenous nationalist and anticolonialist organizations that fought European colonial rule. The most spectacular terrorist incident was the 1946 bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel by the Irgun Zvai Le’umi (National Military Organization), a Jewish underground group. The hotel served as the military headquarters and offices of the British administration in Palestine. The Irgun’s commander at the time was Menachem Begin, future prime minister of Israel and the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize co-winner.

During the late 1960s and 1970s, various disenfranchised or exiled nationalist minorities embraced terrorism to draw attention to their plight and generate international support. A Palestinian group is credited with initiating the current era of international terrorism: On July 22, 1968, three armed Palestinians belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an international Israeli El Al commercial flight for purely political reasons to create an international crisis and generate publicity.

Also during the late 1960s and early 1970s, North and South American, as well as western European, political extremists began to form terrorist groups that opposed American intervention in Vietnam and what they claimed were fundamental socioeconomic inequities of the modern capitalist liberal-democratic state. Germany’s Baader-Meinhof Gang and Italy’s Red Brigades received training at Palestinian camps in the Middle East. Right-wing, or neo-fascist and neo-Nazi, terrorism movements also appeared in many western European countries and the U.S. during the late 1970s in response to left-wing violence. However, they lacked the numbers and popular support enjoyed by their left-wing counterparts, and so their violence was mostly sporadic and short-lived.

Justifications and Definitions

Regardless of the methods employed, terrorism is by nature political because it involves acquiring and using power to force others to submit to terrorist demands via publicity, focusing attention on the organization, fear, and intimidation. Thus, terrorism’s success is best measured by its ability to attract attention to the terrorists and their cause and by its psychological impact.

Terrorists typically justify their acts by citing exclusion from, or frustration with, the accepted processes of engendering political change. They maintain that terrorism is the only option left, although their choice is a reluctant — even a regrettable — one. Whether one agrees with this justification often depends upon where one’s sympathies lie, for “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

Both national and international law have defined terrorist acts as crimes. Even during war, deliberate violence against innocent civilians is considered a crime. Similarly, violence that spreads beyond an acknowledged geographical theater of war and thus violate the territory of neutral or noncombatant states is also deemed a war crime.

Legal statutes regard terrorism as a crime. Yet there is considerable variation in how these laws define terrorism. A U.S. federal statute defines terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that ... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” [United States Code, Title 18, Section 2331 (18 USC 2331)]. The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful [emphasis added] use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

In broad terms, its causes usually can be traced to political oppression, cultural domination, economic exploitation, ethnic discrimination, and religious persecution. Perceived inequities in the distribution of wealth and political power have led some terrorists to attempt to overthrow democratically elected governments. To achieve a fairer society, they would replace these governments with socialist or communist regimes. Germany’s Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italy’s Red Brigades, and the Weather Underground in the U.S. worked for this aim. Some seek to fulfill what they consider a divinely inspired or millennialist (related to the end of the world) cause. The Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo, responsible for a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, falls into this category. Others embrace comparatively more defined and comprehensible goals, such as re-establishing a national homeland (e.g., Basque separatists in Spain) or unifying a divided nation (Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland). Other terrorists are motivated by specific issues, such as opposing legalized abortion or nuclear energy, or championing environmental concerns and animal rights.

At times, national governments have aided terrorists to further their own foreign policy goals. So-called state-sponsored terrorism, however, falls into a different category altogether, for it is considered a form of covert (secret) warfare, a means to wage war secretly through the use of terrorist surrogates (stand-ins) as hired guns. Such sponsorship has proven invaluable to some terrorist organizations, for it allows them to obtain arms, money, and a safe haven, among other things, and thereby become more powerful and menacing opponents. It also can place at terrorists’ disposal the resources of an established country’s diplomatic, military, and intelligence services, and thereby improve the training of terrorists and facilitate planning and operations. Finally, governments have paid terrorists handsomely for their services, which enables them to present a greater threat to their opponents.

Suicide attacks differ from other terrorist operations, because the perpetrator’s own death is a requirement for success. Suicide bombers, therefore, are typically highly motivated, passionately dedicated individuals who decide voluntarily or upon persuasion to surrender their lives to fulfill their mission. Palestinians, lacking a means of self-defense, have increasingly resorted to the tactic to keep pressure on the occupation forces.

The American Definition

Efforts to eradicate terrorism usually fail because the international community cannot agree on a definition. Now, however, America’s definition is beginning to take hold. On the day after 9/11, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1368, which reaffirmed the UN’s commitment “to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts”; recognized the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the [UN] Charter” against terrorism; and unequivocally condemned “in the strongest terms” the September 11 attacks. Two weeks later, Security Council Resolution 1373 was approved. It called for the prevention and suppression of terrorism financing and greater exchange of the operational information needed by UN member-states to fight terrorism.

American leadership, owing to various pressures, is not ready to accept that terrorism is a reaction to injustice. Presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), talking on “Face the Nation,” said that to win the war on terrorism, the U.S. needs much more that an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation — it needs “the most robust, aggressive, forceful foreign policy.”

This “forceful” foreign policy is not about enforcing justice, but about using the big stick to suppress any reaction to injustice. He wants the U.S. to engage in governing Muslim countries due to his belief that terrorism results from widespread unemployment, and “as long as they are educated in schools which teach them to hate, to hate Israel, to hate us, and to give them the capacity to become terrorists, we need to change that relationship.”

Senator Joe Biden, (D-DE), ranking member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed similar views on May 25 on “Meet the Press.” He blamed Saudi textbooks, declaring, “You cannot allow state-run newspapers, you cannot allow the school system you run to preach hatred, to preach anti-Semitism, to preach anti-Western notions and then expect us to say that they’re cooperating with us…”

The same selective thinking is being propagated by academia. Jerrold Post, who founded the CIA’s Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior, interviewed 21 people held in Israeli and Palestinian prisons, told the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting on May 22 that Palestinians have “basically been bred to hate from very early on.”

Conclusion

The U.S. has placed itself in a corner: It insists that other governments stop, prevent, and even help it to fight terrorism, and yet arms such practitioners of state terrorism as Tel Aviv.

Today, terrorism refers to those whom the U.S. dislikes, especially Muslims, or who work against a U.S. ally-of-the-moment. Thus, the war of liberation in Chechnya is terrorism against Russia, the war of liberation in East Turkestan (Xinjiang) is terrorism against China, and the movement for self-determination in Kashmir is terrorism against India.

The change of definition and the high-powered media beating the official drums are meaningless, because the ground reality says that justice is being denied. This is where the difference between peace and forced acceptance counts. Even official U.S. occupation, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, cannot extinguish this reality.

Why do we allow the efforts of those who would overthrow us? Two reasons:

1. Most people don't even know it is happening.

2. And even if they did, they wouldn't know what to do about it.

Okay, three reasons: We have a conflict between two principles we value very strongly in America: Tolerance on the one hand, and self-protection on the other.

When you talk to people about the violent nature of Islam, what happens? People who know nothing about it and who are not Muslims defend the religion. Why? Because it is a fundamental principle in this country that you have a right to worship as you wish. And in their faith in multiculturalism, some go even further than that and feel that no religion is better than any other.

So when you start trashing on Islam, they defend it vigorously.

I hope you persist, though, because ultimately this is where the war on terrorism is won or lost. If we who know about this stuff cannot change enough opinions, we're doomed.

This is a war of memes and we are on the front line.

Below is an article on citizenwarrior.com that begins to approach how this war might be won:

A MEME IS ANYTHING that can be copied from one mind to another. An idea is a meme. A melody is a meme. The custom of shaking hands when you meet is a meme. The word "meme" is a meme and it has just been copied from my mind to yours. Read more about memes here.

The most dangerous kind of terrorism on the planet is Islamic terrorism. The memetic source of Islamic terrorism is a collection of memes called the Koran. Muslims believe the Koran is the word of Allah. They believe this because it says so in the Koran. It also says that a good Muslim must make continual war on all unbelievers until the entire world is Islamic. Quite a few memes within the Koran enhance and support this premise, and those who follow its teachings to the letter are a threat to freedom and democracy everywhere.

But memes outside the Koran also help the terrorists — memes that exist in non-Muslim minds. For example, the widespread belief that Islam is a religion of peace diverts effort and attention away from the real source of the problem and toward things that will not solve the problem. That's where you come in.

If you will help us spread the word about the Koran, international attention can eventually be turned to solving the real problem. But when you do this, you will get resistance. People will argue with you. An argument is a battle of memes and I want to help you win these battles. I'm not talking about arguing with Muslims about their faith. That is probably close to impossible because the memeplex itself has its own protection, its own "memetic immune system." But the people you know who are not Muslims and live in a free society probably think Islam is a religion of peace. And they probably don't know much about Islam. What you can do is learn about it (start here) and then tell others about it, and sometimes they will argue with you. Then you can use the principles below.

So here are some rules of engagement that will help us win the long-term war of memes:

1. Don't argue. Don't even think of it as argument. What you're doing is trying to persuade. The responses you think of when you're arguing are sharp and hurtful and belittling. Persuasion responses avoid that and try to win someone over to your way of thinking. That's very different and much more effective. One of the reasons people don't like to discuss things with conflicting opinions is that they argue. Arguing tends to be upsetting. Persuasion can be fun. Read more about the fine art of persuading others here.

2. Use facts. Give your sources. Memorize key facts so you can quote them and say where you got those facts. Facts are the most important weapon in your arsenal. A good way to memorize facts is to mark the pages with little post-it notes as you read (or copy and paste if you're reading online). Then record those passages onto a cassette tape or digital recorder, and listen to it while you drive. When you've listened to something six or seven times, you will be able to bring the exact facts to a discussion with confidence.

3. Remain calm. Cultivate calmness and tranquility. When you find yourself getting fired up, remember this is not an argument. You are persuading, and you can't force acceptance of your ideas. They have to be willingly accepted by the other. And people are more swayed by calm understatement than intensity and overstatement. In order to truly stay calm, you will have to be calm in your life, not just in the moment. Read more about becoming a calm person here. When you are calm, you are more persuasive.

4. Good conduct. Use social grace. Good manners. Conduct yourself with class. It is more persuasive.

5. Know what meme you want them to accept. People throw in all kinds of sidetracks and diversions into conversations. Keep clear on one or two simple memes you want them to accept and stay on course.

6. Build concessions slowly, piece by piece. Take smaller parts of the meme that they don't agree with, and convince them with facts that the new understanding is better than the old. Build up these concessions until you can get them to accept the meme you're aiming for. The first concession is your source of facts. Say where you got them and get the other's agreement that your sources are legitimate and authoritative.

7. Be specific. Define your terms. This will make it much easier to stay on track and get partial concessions.

8. Tell them your story. When they say they disagree, simply tell them that you once believed as they do (if this is true and it probably is), and that you slowly and with skepticism were convinced by the facts to change your point of view. This kind of story is very persuasive and prevents you from accidentally making them feel like a fool for not already believing as you do.

9. Be humble. Make it clear you know you don't know it all. Insults or sharp rebukes — or anything that seems to imply that "I know it all and you are grossly uneducated" — has no place in persuasion. It puts emotion up as a defense so new memes cannot can get through. It causes hatred, one-sidedness, and self-righteousness. It even causes wars.

10. Work on one point at a time. Ask "Do you agree with about this small point?

11. Concede those points you agree with. Make it perfectly clear you agree with those points. There is a kind of give-and-take in discussions, and a kind of commerce or reciprocity. If you are willing to concede legitimate points they make and say so, they are more willing to concede legitimate points you make and say so, and so your conversation can get somewhere.

What Makes a Meme Successful? This is a technical paper, by a professor at the University of Brussels, writing about the four factors that influence the success of memes.