This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/4333
April 7, 2010
So this Muslim Brotherhood plan assumes a two pronged attack, one violent when conditions permit, the other nominally legal, working within institutions to modify the culture into greater recognition of Shari'a towards its [assumed] eventual acceptance of full compliance. Since Mr. Amanullah is a key player in the Muslim Public Service Network effort let's examine an essay he wrote in 2004 and published in one of his web presences, altmuslim.org. The piece [see, Why are Muslims so shocked & awed by Yassin's assassination? - The killing of Hamas' founder marks a turning point for Palestinians and an opportunity to re-evaluate their support for the group's military activities] strikes at the heart of the assertion that the intent of this Muslim public service movement is greater dialogue, instead suggesting it's a one way street, a ploy really in which influence can be peddled within the halls of power. A quick read of this piece seems to show Amanullah decrying Hamas' terrorism but upon closer inspection really expresses the sentiment present in the Muslim Brotherhood's plan for stealth jihad.
The above writing is clearly then a tactical judgment, not a blanket moral condemnation of Hamas. Mr. Amanullah is recognizing the imbalance of power between Israel and jihadi Palestinians, observing that the Israelis have all the advantages and power, not to mention all the guns. Reading through the piece reveals that Amanullah has, in part, kind words for Hamas, "Hamas had the potential to be so much more. It's social institutions have been lifesavers for Palestinians hardest hit by the occupation..." Of course Mussolini made the trains run on time, a trait shared by totalitarians throughout history. The reasoning behind the author's words seem to justify the stealth tactic - taking into account the relative imbalance between forces which necessitates adopting a non-confrontational approach, working through the institutions, marching through them and changing them - in the words of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian communist theorist who in the 1920s established the intellectual model for this avenue of transformational cultural attack. Amanullah understands that the West holds all the cards in military confrontations, hence he counsels the path of least resistance. Again, the ability to see that you are on the losing side militarily is neither moral leadership nor is it lofty wisdom. Adding to this assessment we look briefly at the uproar which surrounded the censoring of Sherry Jones short lived novel, The Jewel of Medina, thought critical of Mohammed, in which Mr. Amanullah played an interesting role. The intended publisher of the work, Random House, quickly buckled under severe criticism which by some accounts seems to have been fanned by Mr. Amanullah. Asra Nomani's article in the Wall Street Journal on the controversy [see, http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121797979078815073.html] reads in part:
In an article written by Carlin Romano, orignially published by the Chronicle of Higher Education and reprinted by Campus Watch [see, http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/5657] Amanullah's role seemed critical in fanning the fire of censorship, though he has gone to great lengths since then to claim otherwise.
So what we are left with here is another case of a supposed moderate Muslim being in reality not quite so supportive of the liberalism upon which the West is based. Turing to practical matters, if one examines the Western country in which acceptance of the Muslim multicultural offensive has gained most acceptance - Britain - the downside of this movement - to inject an intolerance rooted in an interpretation of Islam into the public square - is immediately apparent. Instead of resisting, the UK has instead actually partnered with the advocates of this continent-wide and ferocious Islamist cultural assault, to the extent that now Downing St. has established a dual system of jurisprudence, civil courts based upon the tenets laid out in English Common law for most, but for the nation's Muslims, a growing system of Shari'a courts which the central government has empowered to make legal renderings applying only to members of the Islamic faith. Allow us to be perfectly clear in this matter, public institutions can always benefit from the input of new blood. It follows then that individuals of all religious persuasions, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Muslims etc., who are supportive of the basic cultural norms upon which our society is based have a legitimate place at the common table. Additionally, let us stipulate that we are by no means suggesting that Mr. Amanullah intends to pursue this methodology in anything but an entirely legal manner. That said however, when these programs are carried out by individuals who at their core are illiberal, the end result eventually diminishes and tears apart the social contract which binds us all in a sometimes uneasy but historically viable voluntary alliance. This is the great danger posed by those who pursue stealth jihad. They attack this society at its most vulnerable point, making their efforts difficult to check since that with which they are engaged is legal in a statutory sense - despite the long-term harm such practices engender. Failing to take heed of these lessons and actively work to combat movements which engage in injecting people with an Islam-centric world view into positions of influence or power will lead the United States down a similar path. This is more than sufficient justification to resist the Muslim Public Service initiative - it's a Trojan Horse gambit designed to bring out by stealth what can't - for the time being at least - be secured by more traditional, less civil means. 2010 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=intern4.6.10%2Ehtm |
This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/4333