Proponents of Shariah are deceiving America regarding the true nature of Jihad. Don’t be fooled.


This is the sixth in my series of Shariah. Keep in mind that the report from which this information is taken was written during the Obama administration. It’s appropriate that I’m posting this article on the anniversary of 9/11.

The truth is that today’s enemy is completely comprehensible and can be professionally analyzed and factually understood in precise and specific detail. When analysis is so conducted, it is clear that conformance to shariah in America constitutes as great a threat as any enemy the nation has ever confronted.

The Obama administration has nonetheless built upon the willful blindness-induced failures of previous administrations with respect to shariah. The incumbent president and his team have not only declared that there is no “War on Terror” for the United States. They insist – reductio ad absurdum and in conformance with the policy dictates of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the second-largest multinational entity (after the United Nations) made up 15 Authority – that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Such a statement can only be made because, as will be shown below, the OIC and others who adhere to and promote shariah do not define acts of jihad as “terrorism.”

The U.S. government line remains unchanged even as our enemies make plain the connection between their aggressive behavior and shariah-animated jihad. To cite but one example, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly describes the ongoing “historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam,” Yet, Obama’s top counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, insists that the President does not accept that there is a “Global War” with Islamic terrorists.

Brennan further announced that the term “jihadists” will no longer be used to describe our enemies. According to Mr. Brennan, to use the term “jihadists” in describing Islamic terrorists is a mistake because it is “a legitimate term, ‘jihad’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.” He maintains that this use of the term to describe al Qaeda’s ruthless operatives “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek, but in no way deserve.” The problem with this formulation is that jihad as a “holy struggle for a moral goal” may not be in conflict al-Qaeda’s “ruthless” operations.

At a speech in late May 2010 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Brennan expanded on the theme: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Unresolved is whether shariah classifies non-Muslims as innocent.

Brennan’s statements reflect a common lack of understanding of the fundamentals of shariah, including the doctrinal basis of the Quran, hadiths, the role of abrogation, and that status of consensus in which it is rooted. In fact, Brennan’s assertions directly contradict the teachings of leading Islamic scholars.

For example, even a cursory review of the writings of Islamic authorities shows that “jihad” is warfare against non-Muslims. The top counterterrorism adviser to the President of the United States has a professional responsibility to know these facts.

Brennan is correct in one respect: America is not in a “War on Terror.” Terrorism is indeed merely a tactic, like aerial or naval bombardment, ambush, maneuver and other similar activities. But America is at war with a determined enemy who has yet to be honestly identified by anyone in a position of authority in the United States.

It is also accurate to label jihad as a “legitimate tenet of Islam.” But neither shariah nor its practitioners, our enemy, define it in terms that are even close to what Brennan used at CSIS. The shariah definition of jihad and that of the jihadis are the same.

This is not a partisan critique of behavior uniquely exhibited by the incumbent administration, or by Democrats alone. For example, on September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush noted on September 20, 2001 that “terrorists are traitors to their own faith” that “hijacked their own religion.” Regrettably, this and similar statements subsequently issued by various Bush administration officials set the stage for the misleading comments being uttered by their successors today.

Notably, these include President Obama’s statement made on January 7, 2010, that, “We are at war; we are at war with al Qaeda.” The President was discussing the results of an investigation into the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight over Detroit by a young Muslim from Nigeria named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Even some of the President’s critics expressed relief that the Chief Executive 16 was finally recognizing that the nation was indeed facing a genuine enemy (albeit one comprised of many elements besides al Qaeda).

The problem is that Obama, like Brennan and most of the U.S. national security leadership since shariah emerged as a real threat, has failed to define or explain accurately the nature of an enemy that explicitly threatens the American way of life and the constitutional framework that drives the exceptionalism it sustains. In fact, the forces of shariah have been at war with non-Muslims for 1400 years and with the United States of America for 200 years. While the most recent campaign to impose this totalitarian code began in the late 20th Century, it is but the latest in a historical record of offensive warfare that stretches back to the origins of Islam itself.

When Army Major Nidal Hassan murdered thirteen people at Ft. Hood, Texas on November 5, 2009, the media, as well as the FBI, searched for answers as to why this American-born military officer would commit such an unconscionable act – the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. While myriad theories and opinions were offered, few in the Administration, the media, academia or the rest of the elite seemed capable of comprehending the killer’s motives – even as he expressly stated them for years leading up to the event.

In fact, Hasan fully articulated his intentions to senior officers in the U.S. Army Medical Corps years before his rampage, and the warnings were ignored when brought to higher ranks. In a fifty-slide briefing given to his medical school class in 2007, entitled “Koranic View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S Military,” Hasan articulated the requirement that Muslims under Islamic Law conduct Jihad against non-Muslims, and he specifically defined the parameters within which Muslims must act. For Hasan, the relevant parameter was being deployed to the Middle East as this would put him in a status where he could be required to “kill without right.” As can be demonstrated in detail, Hassan’s presentation tracks exactly with Islamic Law – and he should know since, at the time of his massacre he was the acting Imam for Ft. Hood.

Had anyone in the audience been taught the Enemy Threat Doctrine (i.e., shariah on jihad), Hasan’s amazingly candid presentation, which thoroughly explained his concerns given the fundamental concepts of shariah, would have alerted authorities in time to prevent his attack. Furthermore, the briefing contained an explicit declaration of Hasan’s allegiance as a Muslim soldier in the Army of Allah. And yet, seemingly, none of the audience of senior medical officers recognized the threat that Hasan posed to his fellow soldiers. Hasan announced himself an enemy combatant and no one was either able or willing to process that information properly.


Click here to read an article I wrote about the true nature of jihad. What John Brennan is still peddling to the American people is a bold-face lie and he knows it. He is no friend of America, and his rants against the policies of President Trump represent the height of hypocrisy. Please take time to read my article and pass it along.

Regarding the Fort Hood shooting, you may remember the comments of Army Chief of Staff General George Casey. In case for forgot, here they are:

“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

When the leader of our army believes that diversity is more important than protecting the lives of our troops, we’ve got a real problem. The Jihadi shrink who opened fire on US troops killing thirteen did everything but spray paint, “I Am Going to Kill You All” on the wall, before he actually carried out his attack. Not only did Hassan put a Jihadist abbreviation on his business cards, he delivered repeated lectures justifying Jihad, accused the soldiers he was supposed to treat of War Crimes and was already being investigated for contacts with Al Qaeda and for defending suicide bombing online. At a time when snow globes are banned at airports and detectors are positioned in every Federal building, a Jihadist like Nidal Hassan can openly and freely express his sympathies and affinity for terrorism without retribution. Why? Because he is a Muslim.

Click here for the first article in this series.


Check out my YouTube channel.


Each ISIS attack now is a reaction to Trump policies, but all ISIS attacks during Obama’s term were due to Climate Change and a plea for jobs. Do these people really expect to be taken seriously?


Inclusion of photographs and/or images in no way implies the endorsement of this blog or its information by the photographer or designer.