“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist
Process’ with all the word 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…”
Page 7, Explanatory
Memorandum
, 1991, Muslim Brotherhood
I noted in Part
I
of this review that the “Islamophobia” of Americans is more the enemy
recognized by our “defenders” than is the actual enemy, Islam, the enemy that
cannot be named. Within that purgatory of purposeless analytical bean-counting
and sand-sifting is a startling and craven ignorance of the actual enemy,
enforced by post-modern, left-wing politically correct thought and speech, while
the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation
(OIC) stymie any meaningful investigation and
intelligence analysis by determining definitions and “red lines” and the
language employed in the War on Terror.
The Center
for Security Policy
briefly recounts the history of the Explanatory Memorandum cited above,
dated May 22, 1991.
It
amounted to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States and
was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the
Group in North America.” The Explanatory Memorandum was written…by a member of
the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior
Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram. It had been approved by the Brotherhood’s
Shura Council and Organizational Conference and was meant for internal review
by the Brothers’ leadership in Egypt.
Actually, the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC do not
stymie our politicians, the military, and intelligence agencies; they stymie
themselves. The censorship is voluntary, not imposed. The enemy knows this. Our
leadership does not, because it is immersed in a swamp of psychobabble and
behavior babble and “violent extremism” babble. All the varieties of babble are
meant to enable the leadership to defer knowledge of Islam, Sharia, and patronize
the language games of the OIC and the Brotherhood.
Rather than prosecute a genuine War on Terror, our
leadership would rather wear a blindfold and play “Pin the tail on the donkey,”
the donkey being anything but Islam.
Islam, in their eyes, is a “religion of peace” that was and is still being
“hijacked” by “radicals,” “extremists,” “lone wolves,” al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, alShabaab, and ISIS. It’s either that, or acts of terrorism have
nothing to do with Islam.
Stephen Coughlin, in Catastrophic Failure, torpedoes that whole perilous and
near-treasonous mindset. They’re all cut from the same cloth, and that cloth is
Sharia law.
First, let’s take a look at the Ten
Year Programme of Action
devised by the 57-member
state
OIC for the express purpose of criminalizing freedom of speech in the
West but in particular in the United States. The OIC, which has an observer
status in the United Nations, is counting on the UN to pass Resolution 16/18,
which would in effect globally criminalize “Islamophobia” or anything negative statement
or stance on Islam. Further, the OIC, hand-in-hand with the UN, has decided
that “Islamophobia” and any other criticism of Islam is “racist.” It has a new
definition of “racism,” which is criticism of Islam based on religion, not on
ethnicity. That religion is Islam.
These are quotations directly from the “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim
Ummah in the 21st Century – Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit
Conference, Makkah al Mukarramah – Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 5-6 dhul qa’dah
1426 h  7-8 December 2005.”
Emphasize
that inter-civilizational dialogue, based on mutual respect and understanding,
and equality amongst people are prerequisites for international peace and
security, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, and participation in
developing the mechanism for that dialogue….
Endeavour to spread the correct ideas about
Islam as a religion of moderation and tolerance and to safeguard Islamic
values, beliefs and principles in order to fortify Muslims against extremism
and narrow-mindedness…..
This is all
guff for Western, non-Muslim public consumption. As Coughlin discusses, in
Islamic law, ostensibly benign terms such as “tolerance,” “terrorism” and
“peaceful co-existence” do not mean the same things to the OIC or any Muslim
conversant in the Koran as they might
mean to us. “Tolerance” is not extended to non-Muslims unless they pay jizya, which theoretically buys dhimmis relief
from persecution by Islam; “terrorism” is confined to the killing of other
Muslims, not of non-Muslims, which is a moral obligation stated in the Koran; and “peaceful co-existence” means
that you being a Muslim should get along with your Muslim neighbors, provided
they are of the same Muslim sect (Sunni or Shi’ite). “Human rights?” Only
Muslims are “human.” And only Muslims have “rights.” There is no “peaceful
co-existence” possible between Islam and non-Muslims, only a hudna or temporary truce.
Under the
“Combating Islamophobia” heading are these points:
1.
Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all
governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.
2. 
Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an
observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia,
issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant
Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter
Islamophobia.
3.  Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an
international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to
enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments. [This is Resolution 16/18,
endorsed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton among others; see the Coughlin
video embedded in this Counter Jihad report.]
4.  Initiate a structured and sustained dialogue
in order to project the true values of Islam and empower Muslim countries to
help in the war against extremism and terrorism.
Coughlin:
A crucial characteristic of Islamic law is
that it is supposed to be the “law of the land.” Contrary to popular belief,
“radical” or “extremist” Muslims almost never say, “I fight jihad to gain
converts to Islam.” When they talk about bringing Islam to the world, they are
usually referring to Islamic law….They
do not talk about religion.
Everyone who has spent time researching Islam
has heard the statement: Islam is not
just a religion, but a complete way of life governed by Islamic law….
“Not just a religion” indicates that the
theology of Islam is subordinate to the law of Islam. While the personal
elements of Islam are – and ought to be – protected by the First Amendment, to
the extent that “governed by Islamic law” means Islam should be the “law of the
land,” Islam’s ambitions might conflict with Article VI of the U.S.
Constitution. In stipulating that the Constitution “shall be the supreme
law of the land,” Article VI establishes that no higher authority or system of
government can supersede its influence. [pp. 54-55]
Doubtless the 57 heads of state, kings, and
government officials conceded that Islam is followed by numerous ethnic groups,
including by Caucasian converts to Islam. But the racism designation carries or
invokes a particularly repellant form of intolerance. Needless to say, Islam
itself is manifestly intolerant of all other religions.  The OIC, as Coughlin explains, poses as the
Islamic Ummah, which, according to its own Sharia-defined premises, is a state.
This is, then, a state that wishes to obviate the U.S. Constitution and
establish its own rule over this country. With Sharia as the new “law of the
land.”
The purpose of the OIC’s Ten Year Programme is in
perfect conformance with the statement from the Explanatory Memorandum excerpted above. That is all. And the
“organizing principle” elucidated by Stephen Coughlin is simple, as well: It is
the incremental imposition of Sharia law or Islamic law.
Why incremental? Because the OIC is heeding Seyyid Qutb’s advice in
his 1964 manifesto Milestones
(Ma’alim fi al-Tariq) to slowly introduce
Sharia in the West and particularly on Americans, so they can accustom or acclimatize
themselves to living under Sharia law. I discuss Qutb, his life, and his
priorities in my 2012 column. “The
Madness of Qutb’s Milestones.
Milestones,
published in 1964* (Ma’alim fi al-Tariq), purports to adhere to and
advance the cause and spread of a moral code that will “save”
mankind. The book is actually a manifesto for nihilism that guarantees man’s
enslavement and the eradication of any and all who refuse to submit to Islam….
Qutb
was a selfless little man, a “moderate” Muslim, who came out of Egypt
to absorb Western methods of education (in the U.S. 1948-1950), and returned to
Egypt convinced that the West needed to be educated about the true nature of
Islam, even if that pedagogy meant killing, maiming, and enslaving
non-believers. He developed a special animus for the United States, for that is
where he went to learn about Western education. Long before any mullah deemed
America the “Great Satan,” Qutb’s observations of the country during
his two-year sojourn here caused him to mark it for jihad and its
cultural and/or violent conversion to Islam.

That is, he marked it for death. For that is all Islam is – a nihilist state of
existence for Muslim zombies and their looted and subservient non-believers….
The
Koran, he emphasized, was not just a
book to consult for “culture and information.” It was a command for
action, a blueprint for purification and conquest.
Coughlin links the policy of abrogation – in which
earlier Koranic verses are replaced permanently
with newer, violent verses – with Qutb’s recommended strategy of the gradual,
“peaceful” abrogation of secular and civil American law. This is called the
Milestone Process. The process also applies to an individual Muslim’s own fitna or internal struggle on the way to
becoming an “ideal” Muslim, ready to wage jihad.
A succinct video that explains the abrogation of verses can be viewed here.
Coughlin writes:
In
2012, Sunni scholar and chief Muslim Brotherhood jurist Sheikh Yusuf
al-Qaradawi used Milestones
vocabulary when discussing the strategic implementation of Islamic law in
then-Brotherhood-controlled Egypt:
I
think the shari’a should be
implemented gradually. This is a law of the shari’a
and a law of nature….We should do thing gradually. We should prepare the
people, teach them. People have to learn. We have to make an effort to teach
people the truth about Islam….People do not understand the shari’a properly…I think that in the first five years, there should
be no chopping off of hands. This period should be dedicated to teaching things.
A transitional phase….
Al-Qaradawi was discussing the rise of the
Brotherhood in Egypt. But, as Coughlin points out, the same principle applies
to America. Writes Coughlin:
Through
time, fidelity to the Milestones
narrative has been consistent – including within the Muslim Brotherhood in
America. Its secret strategy document restates Qutb’s message and includes a
common emphasis on developments in stages as stated in Qur’an Verse 17: 106 in
the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum.
Quoting Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Badi
from an online magazine, Ikhwanonline
from 2011:
The
writer of the memorandum [Mohammed Akram] believes that understanding and
comprehending the historical stages of the Islamic activism which was led and
being led by the Muslim Brotherhood in this continent is a very important key
in working towards settlement, through which the Group observes its march, the
direction of its movement and the curves and turns of its road. [Note: The Explanatory Memorandum associates “settlement” with “civilization
jihad.”][Second brackets Coughlin’s] (pp. 145-147)
Compounding the damage to the nation’s security
caused by performing pseudo threat analyses by our intelligence agencies,
analyses that mean nothing because they don’t parse or acknowledge the role of
Sharia  and are not in the least
reality-based – so thoroughly explicated by Coughlin – and exacerbating the
crippled state of our “defenders’” epistemology and metaphysics vis-à-vis a
shrunken, politically correct lexicon and vocabulary written by the enemy and
enthusiastically adopted by the DHS, the FBI, the Pentagon, and all of our
military services, is the fact that the OIC and the Brotherhood have deemed
telling a single demonstrable truth about Islam as outright defamation,
blasphemy and evidence of “Islamophobia.” 
In
the Koran, it is spelled out that the
“good” is whatever advances or promotes the spread of Islam; the
“bad” is whatever rejects, combats, or repudiates Islam. That’s the
basic measure of the Islamic definitions of good and bad. The “good”
should be done or encouraged; the bad is wrong and should be forbidden. But, in
fact, there are no Islamic definitions of either term; it’s just Allah’s
command. Period. Muslims don’t demand that Allah define his terms. That would
verge on blasphemy or apostasy, and incur the death penalty. So, they do not
question Allah or Islam. It just “is.” What color can I have my new
Model T Ford in? Any color you want, as long as it’s black. Muslims treat Islam
as though it were a metaphysical entity whose existence and nature can’t be
questioned or disputed.
The “Islamophobia” charge is one our “defenders”
understand. Thus they go out of their way to not hurt the feelings or to not
offend the alleged dignity and super-sensitive “esteem” of countless anonymous
Muslims here and abroad and of the governing Islamists in the OIC and the
Brotherhood – to  not risk inadvertently “slandering” the prophet or even remotely
insinuating that Islam is not a “religion of peace” but totalitarian through
and through that depends on fear and force – or to not get the OIC and the Brotherhood and the UN angry with them and
instigate another staged violent “Day of Rage.” For as Coughlin reveals there
is a convergence of Sharia-driven forces that results in violence and
submission to the incremental establishment of the political element of Islam
in the West, a convergence of which our “defenders” are well aware but refuse
to acknowledge publically but which could have been foreseen and countered. Those
forces are the three “pillars” mentioned in Part I:  jihadi,
dawah, and the Ummah.
Catastrophic Failure
is not a light read. One must focus on each point Coughlin makes in its nine
main Parts: The One Organizing Principle – The Red Pill – The Islamic Movement
and its Awakening – Organization of the Islamic Caliphate – Days of Rage –
Blasphemy and Deterrent Punishment in America – Catastrophic Failures – Our Ignorance
– and the Duty to Know.  One must focus
and perform the task of comprehension and integration which is fraught with
dangers our “defenders” would rather not address and face. Americans not in the
intelligence-gathering business can formulate their own threat-analyses – in fact,
have done so – and find our politicians and “War on Terror” policymakers severely
wanting to the point that charges of a dereliction of duty and a violation of
the oath to defend and protect America and Americans would be a long-overdue
indictment.
Beginning in 2011, Coughlin was declared persona non grata in the classrooms and
lecture halls of the Pentagon and other venues in which warfighting anti-terrorism
policies are taught. The truths he reveals hurt the suicidal policies of
accommodation to Islam. But he would not be silenced. The official brush-off by
the White House and the civilian and military counter-intelligence entities
persuaded him to write Catastrophic
Failure
. The word is now out.
If anyone ever deserved to be conferred the Medal
of Freedom, it is Stephen Coughlin.
Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, by Stephen
Coughlin. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.