Frank Gaffney in The Washington Times: American Mosques, Jihad’s Incubators

How’s this for a wake-up call: America’s most cherished civil liberties and the Constitution that enshrines them are actually enabling Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other Islamists who have the declared mission of destroying our freedoms and government “from within…by [our] hands.”  Specifically, our enemies are using our tolerance of religion to create an infrastructure of mosques here that incubate the Islamic holy war called jihad.

If this revelation is not exactly news to those who are serious students of the Brotherhood’s decades-long, stealthy “civilization jihad” in this country (for more, see the best-selling “Team B II Report” published late last year by the Center for Security Policy: Shariah: The Threat to America), it will almost certainly come as a shock to the average American. Yet, the phenomenon of our rights being used to pursue our destruction has become undeniable – particularly now, thanks to an assiduously researched, peer-reviewed study published on June 6th by the highly respected journal, Middle East Quarterly.

Entitled “Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques,” this paper describes an ominous jihadist footprint being put into place across the nation.  It is made up of ostensibly religious institutions, entities that, therefore, enjoy constitutional protection.  But, according to the data examined by this study, most mosques in the United States are actually engaged in – or at least supportive of – a totalitarian, seditious agenda they call shariah.  Its express purpose is undermining and ultimately forcibly replacing the U.S. government and its founding documents.  In their place would be a “caliph,” governing in accordance with shariah’s political-military-legal code.To be sure, some American mosques are not part of the jihadist enterprise.  And most Muslims in the United States, like most adherents of other faiths, are not regular attendees at their places of worship.

Still, according to this study’s two formidable authors – my colleague (and fellow Big Peace contributor), David Yerushalmi, one of the nation’s foremost non-Muslim experts on the totalitarian Islamic doctrine known as shariah, and a highly respected Israeli academic and expert on Islam and Arabic culture, Dr. Mordechai Kedar – on-site investigations of a random but representative sample of American mosques in fourteen states and the District of Columbia produced chilling insights into the threat posed by many such institutions.

For the purpose of their analysis, the authors examined data collected by surveyors who “were asked to observe and record selected behaviors deemed to be shariah-adherent. These behaviors were selected precisely because they constitute observable and measurable practices of an orthodox form of Islam, as opposed to internalized, non-observable articles of faith.”  Such behaviors included, among other readily discernible indicators: “a) women wearing the hijab (head covering) or niqab (full-length shiftcovering the entire female form except for the eyes); b) gender segregation during mosque prayers; and c) enforcement of straight prayer lines.”

For the purpose of their study, the authors evaluated support for jihad by considering the presence in mosque bookstores, libraries and among recommended materials  “literature encouraging worshipers to engage in terrorist activity, to provide financial support to jihadists, and to promote the establishment of a caliphate in the United States.  These materials also explicitly praised actsof terror against the West; praised symbols or role models of violent jihad; promoted the use of force, terror, war, and violence to implement the shariah; emphasized the inferiority of non-Muslim life; promoted hatred and intolerance toward non-Muslims or notional Muslims; and endorsed inflammatory materialswith anti-U.S. view.”

Employing this methodology, Mr. Yerushalmi and Dr. Kedar found that:

• More than 80 percent of U.S. mosques advocate or otherwise promote violence.  “Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all.”

• “In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts.  The leadership at shariah-adherent mosques was morelikely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-shariah-adherent mosques.”

• “[O]f the 51 mosques that contained severe materials, 100 percent were led by imams who recommended that worshipers study texts that promote violence.”

• “Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad.  The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who wereknown to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.”

[See the website MappingSharia.com for more information on each of the books surveyed, including a breif analysis of each book’s importance, excerpts, their availability, and even downloadable PDFs.]

In short, such findings strongly suggest that shariah-adherence is a useful predictor of sympathy for – and, in some cases at least, action on behalf of – jihad, to include both the Islamists’ violent or stealthy forms of warfare aimed at supplanting the U.S. Constitution and government.  Indeed, the study confirms the anecdotal reports by Muslims themselves and earlier, less rigorous empirical studies of Saudi hate-filled literature permeating mosques in the United States.

The UK government has just announced that, pursuant to a update of its counter-terrorism program known as “Prevent,” it now recognizes non-violent forms of Islamist extremism can be every bit as dangerous as the violent kinds.  We need to do the same – especially since the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow shariah-adherents are successfully using not only mosques, but academia, the media, financial institutions, political groups and interfaith “dialogue” to pursue their pre-violent yet seditious, and therefore anti-constitutional and illegal, agenda.