The plans of the Muslim Brotherhood have to subvert the united States have been in our possession for decades. There is no denying what they state, and yet, there are still those in America today who say it isn’t so. Author and speaker Robert Spencer takes on a recent attempt by a writer at The Huffington Post to blast anti-jihadists for telling the truth about Islam, jihad and the documented plans of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The following is Robert’s video and I transcribed it below.
Arnold Isaacs recently wrote in The Huffington Post that “Anti-Muslim activists in the United States were operating in a ‘post-truth era’ and putting out ‘alternative facts’ long before those phrases entered the language. For the last decade, they have been spreading provable falsehoods through their well-organized network of publications and websites.”
Chief among these alleged falsehoods is the claim that, as Isaac says, “Muslims in this country have been engaged in a ‘stealth’ or ‘civilizational jihad’ – a long-term far-reaching conspiracy to infiltrate the US legal system and other public institutions and bring America under Islamic law.”
Isaacs sets out to debunk this claim, and he fails, spectacularly. Isaacs claims that “The Islamophobes offer only two pieces of supporting ‘evidence,’ one for each of those claims. Exhibit A is a document falsely called the Brotherhood’s ‘master plan’ for the clandestine effort to establish Muslim dominance in the United States…The Islamophobia network unfailingly refers to the memorandum as an official declaration of Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy. Frank Gaffney, head of the center for security policy and perhaps the country’s most prominent Islamophobe, called it the Muslim Brotherhood secret plan for taking down our country. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer two other leading voices in the anti-muslim chorus have written that ‘the Brotherhood lays out a plan [in the document] to do nothing less than conquer and Islamize the United States.”
Isaacs says none of that is true. The document, he says, dated May 1991 entitled ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America’ is real, but there is no evidence, he says, that it represents the views of anyone other than the single Brotherhood member who wrote it.
Now how does Isaacs actually know that? He invokes Georgetown University’s Bridge Initiative and David Shipler, who wrote about the memorandum at length in a book as having debunked it. Yet, Bridge and Shipler wrote about the memorandum years ago.
Isaacs is rehashing what they said now because there is a real possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood could be declared a terrorist organization, a prospect that deeply alarms the left and its Islamic supremacist allies.
So, once again, the evidence must be discredited and once again this discrediting, founders on the facts.
The first direct challenge to the authenticity and importance of the document came from Shipler in The New Yorker in May 2015. In a lengthy attack on foes of jihad terror, Shipler wrote derisively of the document’s illusion of importance and claimed that it was a mere proposal a plea from an underling. Unfortunately for Shipler, the Justice Department took this memorandum quite seriously and as much more than a plea from an underling. Federal prosecutors, during the Holy Land Foundation trial, stated that it was written not by a little-known underling but by a US Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member, Mohammed Akram Adlouni. The Shura Council is the Muslim Brotherhood’s governing body.
In the 1992 Muslim Brotherhood directory, Akram is listed as a member of the Brotherhood’s Board of Directors and executive office. He was also identified as office secretary, which didn’t mean a clerk, but a leading officer of the organization. Secretary-general would be a more precise translation of the Arabic term used in the directory.
“The memorandum described,” the federal prosecutors wrote, “the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as a kind of grand jihad,” not in other words, one man’s wishful thinking.
Investigative journalist Patrick Poole also noted that a “federal court agreed in a published opinion with the Justice Department’s analysis of the document.”
Even Shipler himself admitted that Akram’s memorandum was one of the documents that the Holy Land Foundation defense team had challenged unsuccessfully. Meanwhile, the Bridge Initiative debunking centers upon the claim that the memorandum was not a formal plan accepted by the Brotherhood and it didn’t have influence in other Muslim circles.
However, the center for security policy has noted that the memorandum contains proposals for events which do, in fact, take place. Akram’s explanatory memorandum fits into a historical context of what the Brotherhood had done in the past, was proposing to do, and what it, in fact, can later be shown to have accomplished.
As for Bridge’s claim that Akram’s arguments and phrasing in Arabic are rarely found on the web and not found in Islamic doctrine or literature the CSP points out that Akram’s memorandum was never intended to be read by the public at large at all, but only by high-level members of his own organization. Thus, there is no reason for anyone to be surprised that Akram’s ideas are not widespread online.
What’s more, counter-terror experts took Akram’s memorandum quite seriously. The former US deputy chief for counterterrorism at the Department of Justice Jeff Breinholt remarked: “For the first time, that was almost direct proof of what we had long suspected about their true political goals in the United States. Something like the explanatory memo is a bonanza for the art of intelligence because it actually is the target or the subject speaking in their own words about what they intend.”
Nathan Garrett, a former FBI agent and federal prosecutor, noted: “The organizations that were on that list represented a huge segment of the Islamic voice in North America at the time. The memorandum not only named names it candidly revealed just how the Brotherhood viewed the United States as a target of conquest.”
Now, why would Arnold Isaacs and The Huffington Post be so avid to discredit this obviously authentic and important document? Could they actually support the subversion and Islamization of the US? Whether they actually do or are just useful idiots, if they succeed in making the American public turn away from the evidence and the initiative to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization is defeated, subversion and Islamization are exactly what Isaacs and the HuffPo are going to get.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost