The Institution of the Hisba – Public Duties in Islam’s Translator’s Foreword

It is informative to realize that a professor did not stumble upon the works of ibn Taymiya until he was Lecturing at the Doctoral Level on Islamic and Comparative Law.  This demonstrates a great deal of untruth, but also indicates that only the most elite thinkers of Islam are meant to delve into the intricacies of the Institution of the Hisba.  The reason is simple – the Hisba provides the moral/ethical context of Jihad and all of its Islamic Supremacist derivations.  For Muhtar Holland to recognize that Knowledge is a key theme in ibn Taymiya’s treatise is rather disingenuous considering Holland did not specify the nature of the Knowledge which determines the world view of the devout Muslim.  The reason Knowledge precedes all things in Taymiya’s work is precisely because the Knowledge spoken of is the Knowledge of the testament that is the Koran, the ijma, the Hadith, the sira, the parallels – the Knowledge is Allah’s Message, Messenger, Shariah Law and their origin in the Celestial Arabic tongue of Allah.  Knowledge and Authority are the key aspects of the treatise by ibn Taymiya known as the Institution of the Hisba. 

Capacity and duty are also duly dwelt on by ibn Taymiya, as is the breadth of the institution’s basis “to command good and forbid evil.”  And while the nature of that good and that evil and the nature of commanding and forbidding can be better dealt with through exegesis of the text, itself, it must be noted that Muhtar Holland treats the reality of the Taymiya text as a dangerous formula, stressing the need for understanding and applying the lessons in context, warning of the need for patience and forbearance to balance the drive towards the fanatical or the fundamentalist with a less alarmist and more moderate tone and measure. 

Indeed, the text is a formula - in context, it has the power to add glammer to the veil of Islam, that those who stand against it might fall to submission by the force of Allah’s Divined Will.  What is most important is to realize that “Knowledge precedes Command and Prohibition”…all else – Authority, Capacity, Duty, Gentleness, Patience, Forbearance - follows the initial Knowledge of Allah’s prescriptions and Shariah’s Lawful limits. 

-Gary H. Johnson, Jr. (4/9/09, 1:39amEST) 

 

The Institution of the Hisba – Translator’s Foreword
By: Muhtar Holland

Transcribed by: Gary H. Johnson, Jr. with two [guided corrections] by Imam al-Mahdi  Zed ibn Yahia

It is with a feeling of gratitude to [Allah] that I welcome the publication of this modest work of translation, for it is a great blessing to be able to share with others any benefit one has personally enjoyed.  For the reader who appreciates a personal note, I may offer a brief account of the circumstances in which I came to read and reflect on Ibn Taymiya’s treatise, and to undertake the task of rendering it into my native language:
The ferment of the 1960s left few people unaffected, particularly among the young and especially those in the universities.  There was a widespread sense, not only of the need for change in almost all spheres of life, but that change could really be for the better.  Above all, there was a definite feeling that such change was actually possible, and that one could make a significant and individual contribution to its achievement.  At the same time, one could not fail to be aware that resistance to the changes taking place was powerful and often violent.  It was apparent, moreover, that the new movements and currents were by no means always rightly guided.

Rush Limbaugh Awakens Capitalism in America

Rush Limbaugh closes out CPAC in John Galt fashion.  It is about damn time someone said what needed to be said.  It will not go away.  Nothing will change the fact that he gave the speech.  No amount of Government Control – or squadristi tactics – will change the fact that Rush’s speech changed the course of History.  He is not a politician – he is a man…and he is not bound by anything but his conscious will to excel, his desire to be an American.   You want a lesson in why the Fairness Doctrine is about Destroying the heart of America – the Fairness Doctrine’s desire is to stop this level of integrity from forming in the core of men and women in this country, because it demonstrates the utter ineffectiveness of Government Bureaucracy…the total lack of vision inherent in those who refuse to compete and want everyone to have a slice of the pie whether deserving or not.  Rush stole nothing.  Rush earned again every penny he has ever made tonight.  Rush may have just awakened the internal beating heart of the American dream in enough men and women in the silent majority to give us a chance against the onslaught of Islamic Supremacism and Liberal Supremacism in our midsts.  Thank you Rush, for bailing out the Republican party – you didn’t need a stimulus bill – you only needed ideas.  You didn’t need to establish jobs or universal healthcare…all you needed was an hour of time to teach people that they are not alone, that reason is not and will never be checked by the rationale of altruistic greed.  Bravo.

The most important element of his speech was the realization that we, as Americans, must slow down the runaway train of Democratic INSANITY!@(*^ $E LB:KP(&% C)^R

Slow down Obama – his course is a global killer – more effective than any nuclear winter.  Slow the Democrats Down - only by slowing down this train of evil and cruelty can a moral indictment be levied by the reasoned will of American integrity at the Polls in 2010 and 2012.

If we don’t slow down the train – we will be forced to derail it.  Force is the ultimate last resort of reasoning minds…it is the first impulse of the rationale of control and supremacy.

The Selfish Earn.  The Greedy Steal.  This will never change.  The American Dream cannot die – it can only be stolen by the greed of those who seek to destroy the reasoned will of victory over evil and the reasoned establishment of the primacy of individual rights over the tyranny of supremacist faiths and ideology.
Gary H. Johnson, Jr.

(3/1/09 4:05amEST)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html

Rush’s First Televised Address to the Nation:
Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Speech February 28, 2009

Chris Carter Interviews Gary H. Johnson, Jr. – Transcript Rough cut

The following interview was cut on January 16th, 2009.  A few technical difficulties caused certain parts of the interview to not fully transmit through the blogtalkradio.  Luckily, I had written notes to go along with the interview and these allowed me to put the missing text into this print transmission inside { these bracket symbols }.  In time, I will fully edit the piece and add in all of the ums and erms and stammerings to the text…I will also add links to the radio show itself and my notes…but for now….enjoy the show.

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. 2/10/09

**************************

Chris Carter: Gary, thanks for joining Unto the Breach, today.  How are you doing?

Gary H. Johnson, Jr.: I’m doing great.  Thanks for having me, Chris.

Carter: Excellent, glad to. Glad to.  You’ve got the United Against Islamic Supremacism blog.  You’re an independent researcher.  You’re following all of this stuff that we kind of keep an eye on.  I saw the other day that the ISNA President is offering the inaugural prayer.  Who is the ISNA and what is the significance of Ingrid Mattson doing the prayer for Obama?

Johnson: Well Chris, the ISNA is the Islamic Society of North America.  Ingrid Mattson is the President of the ISNA.  Now, that wouldn’t be that big of a deal if it wasn’t for the fact that the ISNA was an unin…unindicted co-conspirator with the Holy land Foundation.

Carter: And when you say unindicted co-conspirator…I mean that sounds inocuous but it’s not, right?

Johnson:  Right, uhm, the fact is the Holy Land Foundation was an organization which was just found guilty by the US Court system on over a hundred counts of aiding and funding terrorism.  Specifically the HLF was found guilty of supporting Gaza-based Hamas terrorism.  And the ISNA, like about fifteen to twenty other organizations were all unindicted co-conspirators, which means that the United States Government just didn’t have enough information linking them to the program.

Carter:  So, when Obama has Ingrid Mattson come in, you know this unindicted – the president of an unindicted – co-conspirator to the Holy Land Foundation trial.  You know, where they are guilty of supporting terrorism.  You know, what should that mean to the American Citizen.  I mean, that kind of spooks me; but, in plain terms, what does that mean?

Chris Carter interviews W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Unto the Breach

9-12-08

Interview of W. Thomas Smith, Jr. by Crushing Chris Carter

transcribed by Gary H. Johnson, Jr.

Chris Carter: We’re on the phone, live, with W. Thomas Smith, Jr., military analyst and columnist. How are you doing today?

W. Thomas Smith, Jr.: Doing Great Chris. Thanks for having me.

Carter: Excellent. All right. Let’s just get right into it, here. Looking back into the fighting this past May, which led to the Doha Agreement and the new unity government, Hezbollah attacked the Future TV station. In your opinion, what did Hezbollah accomplish by attacking a Lebanese Television Station? And what could they have gained?

Smith: Well – two things. First of all, it…it was an attack on a major source of information opposed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And second, the Future Movement, which is Sunni, is pro-government; and the Future Movement is a ma…major player in the pro-democracy movement in Lebanon – this is a threat to Hezbollah. So when you launch – um…and just… this is…is speaking militarily – when you launch an offensive against a population or an army, or whatever, you go after its command and control, which is basically what Hezbollah did by going after Future News. And when I say Hezbollah, let’s say Hezbollah and its allies, because that would include, you know, Hezbollah, Amal, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, that crowd. So, I’m not at all surprised, um…you know…if you look at previous wars and whether civil wars or larger conventional wars, invasions, whatever, you’re going to see that when you go after command and control, a portion of that command and control, you know, are the television and radio stations.

Carter: Well, just recently – this month – a team of Brazilian journalists were eating at a restaurant in Dahiyeh province…or a Dahiyeh neighborhood…and they were kidnapped by Hezbollah. What effect does this intimidation have on Western Journalists in Lebanon?

Smith: Yeah, that’s…the pronunciation is actually Da-heey-a, and what that, and Dahiyeh translated literally means “the suburbs”. And it is the southern suburbs in Beirut which, basically, is a Hezbollah stronghold. Hezbollah controls it. They have all authority in there. Umm, gosh I almost feel like I don’t have enough time to adequately cover this when I’m asked a question like that, because its…there is so much to this, but let’s just say that, you know, what happened in Dahiyeh with the Brazilian journalists – it was bizarre to say the least – but it wasn’t at all surprising and, you know, though Hezbollah’s apologists and its sympathizers would lead you to believe that anyone can just freely stroll or jog, or drive, or dine, or take pictures, or whatever…in…in Hezbollah controlled security squares like Dahiyeh…and you have to understand, Chris, that Hezbollah has greater control over the media than most Westerners realize. I mean they, they control through intimidation. They pay off journalists. They pay off seemingly objective news desks. I’m not saying that all media is corrupt in Lebanon; but, but again, you do have this problem of Hezbollah’s control. Hezbollah also runs their own papers. They have their own papers. They have their own radio stations and TV Station. And they have an allied TV Station, which is Orange TV, which was started by General Michel Aoun, who is an ally of Hezbollah. They’ve also effectively infiltrated media – both Lebanese and international media. That includes, to a lesser degree, even bloggers. You’ve gotta count that because that, that information is out there. But, but you have to also remember that Hezbollah does not let journalists see what they don’t want them to see. You know, there are stories taking place all the time – and there are big stories – related to Hezbollah and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and their operations as well as Syrian special operations that are either not reported or they receive, you know, only very limited coverage.

Carter: Yeah, you talked about some things like that on our last interview. It’s really interesting as far as how how they suppress the media. Moving on to another subject, here…you were recently interviewed in Canada Free Press, in an article called “Strange Rumblings in Lebanon” and this was interesting. You said rather than a state within a state, you called Hezbollah more of a kingdom within a state. What did you mean by that?

Smith: Well, that’s just kind of my play on words; because…you know…frankly, Hezbollah is often called a state within a state. Um, and…and what I say is its a kingdom within a state because very simply Hezbollah governs, well, it actually rules from the top down as a kingdom. And if you look at how the organization is set up, its very similar to the Taliban model. You know, they provide social services, and things like that, but…and law enforcement. But, on the reverse, they demand unwavering loyalty and service to Hezbollah. So, yeah…it is…it is, in my mind, a kingdom within a state.

Carter: We move back to the fighting in May – it was triggered not just by Hezbollah’s microwave telecommunications network, but also by the government firing the head of Airport Security. Now, after the dust settled this May, did Hezbollah retain its initial position of security at the Rafik Hariri Airport?

Smith: Yes, in fact…uh, you know…he retained his position as the security chief at the airport. And, uh, and…in fact…all government decisions against Hezbollah were rescinded, and they were granted…in fact…new concessions – uh, more cabinet seats, veto power, that kind of thing. So, you know, the, you know, there, there were basically two things that started the fighting; and, one was, again, the firing of the Airport Security Chief and then the government trying to dismantle the telecommunications system. Hezbollah got to keep both. And then, looking back at the…yeah…and looking back at the cabinet seats and the veto power – that is really disturbing to me, particularly the veto power. Because, this, Hezbollah was granted veto power in government decisions, which means Iran and Syria have veto power in government decisions, because they call the shots. And, in fact, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – which I mentioned earlier – um, within that IRGC is Iran’s special operations force, known as the Quds Force. And we have uh informa…we received information this past week through open sources that Quds force – senior leaders with the Quds Force – were holding high level meetings with Hezbollah in Beirut last week. And, basically what they were doing was letting, just reminding Hezbollah who calls the shots, who pays the money, and who is making the decisions. So, yeah, this….by granting Hezbollah veto power, you are basically granting Iran and Syria veto power in Lebanese government decisions. Its insane.

Carter: It is insane. I hope people start to pay attention to Lebanon and the situation that is going on around there. That meeting you brought up actually you can read about that on unto the breach newsdesk and we’ll tell you about that a little bit after the interview. In that same interview, you brought up the discussion that you had with the now President of Lebanon, Michel Sleiman, where he said “Hezbollah is a resistance” and “They were here before the army.” If Hezbollah basically started around 1982 and Lebanon was formed all the way back in 1943, what’s he saying?

Smith: Yeah well, Michel Sleiman is…he is basically referring to the army since the Lebanese Civil War. And the Lebanese Civil War ended…I…I’m not sure the exact year, but the early nineties, some say ‘91, some say ‘92; but, uh, because what happened was, yes you had the…you know…the Lebanese Army prior to that; but, it basically disintegrated, when, uh, when the…the Muslims refused to serve under Maronite Christian leadership, so he is talking about the army since the end of the Lebanese Civil War.

Carter: Oh, that makes sense. Well, then, you said around half of the Lebanese military is Shia, and it would kinda back this up here…in the book Hezbollah: A Short History written by Augustus Richard Norton, he says “About half the rank-and-file of the Lebanese Army are Shia and the resistance was popular with the army.” So, my question is, how deeply has Hezbollah infiltrated Lebanon’s Army?

Smith: Well, one thing I wanna point out. You mentioned “resistance”…or that that Norton mentioned in his book – the resistance. And I want your listeners to understand when you hear the word “resistance” that is the soft-soaping word for Hezbollah. That’s what it is. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, no question about it. But they’re, uh, they’re able to exist and skirt UN Mandate by claiming that they are a resistance. So, but getting to your question – actually, our latest numbers indicate that there are probably about 35% of the army is Shia and it is very difficult to determine. Ten percent of that, would be…of that 35%…we would have to say is in the officer, among the officer corps – Shia among the officer corps. Now, again it is difficult to determine how many are Hezbollah. And again we are talking Shia, but how many are Hezbollah would be difficult to determine. Certainly a high percentage would be sympathetic to Hezbollah; so, there is always this fear of fracturing, you know, similar to what happened in the Lebanese Civil War, which is one of the reasons the army did not aggressively confront Hezbollah in May.

Carter: Alright, we’re back with W. Thomas Smith, Jr. and our interview on Hezbollah. On August 29th, Hezbollah gunmen shot down a Lebanese Army Helicopter, and they killed one of the pilots. In response Hezbollah said that there are actually red lines that the Lebanese Army has been warned not to cross – red lines in their own country. Isn’t this a blatant violation of the United nations Security Council Resolution 1701?

Smith: Well, uh…yes…but, uh, as I mentioned, you’ve got to remember again that Hezbollah is a kingdom within a state and you have to also understand that Hezbollah frequently violates international convention. And the UN, specifically…uh, Unifil, uh can’t or won’t do anything about it.

Carter: Hmm…that’s tough…that’s something else, there. now, Hezbollah claims this helicopter they shot down was Israeli. Now, if that were the case, would we possibly be seeing a replay of the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon?

Smith: No. Not Necessarily, because ummm…there are Israeli flights over Lebanon. In fact, when I was there a year ago, um this month, there were, you know, at night, you would hear Israeli jets, you know, roaring over as far North as Beirut; so, you know, the Israelis do fly over Lebanon. And so, it…it, you know, its kind of a routine thing. But, uh, its an excuse on the part of Hezbollah. They knew it wasn’t an Israeli helicopter.

Carter: Virtually no western media really has picked up on this story. I’d call it a major story. How has Hezbollah kept a lid on this incident. Now, it has been covered inside Lebanon. It’s been covered pretty well, and that is where I’ve got all my articles from; but, how have they been able to keep the lid on this outside of Lebanon?

Smith: Well, I would have to disagree, uh, to a certain degree. The story was picked up by the western media; but it had a short shelf life, because so many of these types of events occur in Lebanon. So, you know, again, it was picked up by western media but it did not…it…maybe it just garnered a column (inch) or two for about a day…umm…and then it was just passed on, because, again, there are just so many stories like this, and in fact even larger stories that are taking place, and often those stories absolutely don’t make western media. So I was sorta…I was actually surprised that this even was picked up by the AP or Reuters, but it was, in fact.

Carter: Well, now, in the Lebanese Parliament, Naila Mouwad has, uh, stuck her neck out pretty far by saying that Lebanon and Hezbollah cannot coexist. A week ago she told the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, “It’s obvious that we are facing two options: either the democratic state of Lebanon or the Hezbollah state.” Does this show that the legitimacy of Hezbollah’s resistance is still in question within Lebanese society?

Smith: Well, I think that the majority of Lebanese people do agree with her. But the problem is, everyone is afraid of Hezbollah. You know, because Hezbollah has the money, they have the weapons, they have the backing of Iran and Syria – and so, they have the leverage. And, the people see that; and they see that the army, the police and the government are not willing to confront or…or challenge Hezbollah…and, and nor is Unifil. And, you know, this is a very real problem. This is why I say, and I’ve said countless times that Lebanon must be viewed as a major front in the broader War on Terror. And I say that because Hezbollah. as homeland security chief Michael Chertoff says “makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team.”

Carter: No doubt. No doubt. Well, that’s about all the questions I’ve got for you today, sir. One thing I wanna do is point our listeners to your website. Basically everything I’ve got out of here came, from some degree came from something you’ve written about. You write so much. And, uh, you’re just a gold mine of information. But where can listeners go to find more from you?

Smith: My website is uswriter.com

Carter: Well that’s W. Thomas Smith, Jr., military analyst and columnist extraordinaire. Thank you. This is the second time he has come on this program. He just knows so much and he is just so far ahead of the curve. This guy is great to talk to. Thanks for coming on the show today, sir.

Smith: Chris, thanks for having me sir.

Carter: Alright, I look forward to maybe having you again sometime. Its…Its…every time we have you on the show, we learn something new.

Smith: Anytime, thank you sir.

Carter: Alright. Thank you.

Chris Carter Interviews Jeffrey Imm

Interview Transcribed by Gary H. Johnson, Jr.

Chris Carter: Alright. Jeffrey Imm, welcome to Unto the Breach.

Jeffrey Imm: Thank you.

Carter: Glad to have you onto the show.

Imm: Glad to be here.

Carter: The United States is fighting a powerful ideology in the long war. Some people call it the war on terror. I call it the Long War. It’s just kind of my personal thing, here. But this can really be tricky for the average man on the street to fully understand. But it seems that you’ve really found a way around this situation. you’ve put it in simple terms…that…that…to me it’s just very hard to argue with. You’ve got the Constitutional pillars of Liberty and Equality…in the things…in what you write about. How does Islamic supremacism threaten individual liberty and equality?

Imm: Well, the fundamental aspect that…that we have to understand – and which is frequently not understood – is that there is a perception that we’re…we’re dealing with a religious challenge. And when…when we look at that, we miss that there’s a bigger political aspect, here, that is…that is more important.

The challenge that we’re really facing is something that I call Islamic Supremacism: basically, the political ideology that is based on Shariah, that is based on the ideology of control of human conduct and human rights. And that…that whole concept of Islamic Supremacism as a political ideology is the key aspect to understanding our challenge. If we take a look at what we’ve seen with any identity based supremacist ideology, what we see is identity-based supremacists try to control the behavior, the mindset and the thinking of individuals. And especially supremacist ideologies, by definition, are against equality and they’re against liberty.

So, one of the things I think that we need to do in understanding a supremacist ideology is understand that (for example) when you deal with these Shariah based Islamic Supremacists, they don’t view women as equal to men. There is not an equal view of people who have different religious beliefs. There is not an equal view of people that have different views on the world or willingness to speak out freely. We have people in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan who are jailed because of what they call blasphemy. We have people who are being arrested…just last week – Christians – who were going to prison in Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, for what they call blasphemy.

Islamic Supremacism is about a theocratic supremacist ideology. Any supremacist ideology, by definition, is against equality and liberty. And our nation is founded on defending the inalienable human rights – not just American rights, but human rights – of individual equality and liberty. So, what we need to understand is that we have an absolute conflict between Islamic Supremacism versus Equality and Liberty.

Carter: We defeated two massive supremacist movements back in the twentieth century: the Nazis and the KKK. Would you say the ultimate goals of the KKK, the Nazis, and the Islamic Supremacists are the same?

Imm: I think the ultimate goal of all supremacist organizations are the same; and, that is to defeat the ideas of equality and liberty. They…they depend on a lie. And the lie, to them, is so important they have to do anything humanly possible to defend that lie, because it’s inherent to their identity. And the lie is that they – in their beliefs, whatever that supremacist belief is – [is] inherently superior in every way to all other humans. And the challenge with supremacist ideologies is that they are, of course, immediately contradictory to equality and liberty because they view themselves as superior to all other human beings.

And I think the challenge is that we’ve been looking at the issue largely from an issue of counter terrorism, from a homeland security perspective; but we really need to look at supremacism from a human rights perspective. Because I think when we look at the issue from a human rights perspective, we will see – as we did in challenging white supremacists in the 1960s when we put a full fledged push on it – that we had to deal with human rights, respecting individuals as equal. And Islamic Supremacists just continue this ongoing problem of superiority that we see with these identity based supremacist ideologies.

Carter: Well, you’ve got the Nazis and the KKK, but you know, when we go back to the Nazis: we beat them. How did we…or…I’m sorry – why is it important to defeat the Nazi party…why was it important to defeat the Nazi party ideologically?

Imm: Well, I’m glad you also asked the other question too, because it is very important. First of all, you never really truly defeat a supremacist ideology. I mean, what you (can) do…is you can defame them, you can undermine their support, and you can show how irrational and how unreasonable they are. But there will always be fringe individuals that will always support some sort of supremacist ideology. And why it was so important to defeat the Nazi party ideology was because we were dealing with – in that time it was a fascist ideology, but it was – an Aryan Supremacist ideology that believed that it deserved to rule the world…it deserved superior control over all of humanity, and it really believed that. And, the thing is, those who respect equality and liberty had to confront that. They had to confront that in every part of the world.

And, as we did then, we have to confront Islamic Supremacism in all parts of the world. And the reason why, from an American perspective, is that we are defenders of the Human Rights of Equality and Liberty. And from a human perspective, if we believe what the American Declaration of Independence says, “that all men are created equal” and that’s an inalienable human right, challenging the ideology of any supremacist group, whether it’s the Nazi Party, White Supremacists, or Islamic Supremacism is really just affirming our belief in the basic human rights of human kind.

Carter: That’s why it’s so…to me…that’s why it’s so brilliant. The way you phrase this, you just totally make an end run around all of these complex situations. You boil it down…you boil it down to something…you know…who likes the Nazis? Who likes the KKK? Like you said, “fringe” elements…you know…they’re nuts. And that’s totally against the Declaration of Independence, and that’s – to me – what people are missing, here. What’s the best way, in your opinion, to confront the Islamic Supremacist movement?

Imm: I think there are a couple of ways to deal with it. My personal opinion is: right now, that we have lost so much ground within Washington D.C., within the federal government because of infiltration of either Islamic Supremacists or Islamic Supremacist appeasers, that I think the best way to confront Islamic Supremacism is to go to the public. And I think we need to go to the public on more than one level. We need to deal with it, not only from a[n] issue of security for America but we also have to deal with it as a human rights issue. I think the issue that a lot of the American public are not as well aware of are the continuing abuses by Islamic Supremacists around the world on a daily basis. Last week, the poor girls in Afghanistan having acid thrown in their face… You see it almost every day, people that follow the news. But, but the Supremacist abuses are an ongoing issue. And, I think, just as we were outraged when our nation finally agreed to confront as an ideology, White Supremacism…I think our nation needs to have the same level of outrage on a moral and human rights basis on Islamic Supremacism. And, I think the issue is we have to make sure the American public understands the value we have with Equality and Liberty. And…[the American Public should] understand…and think about what their life would be like if they did not have that equality and liberty that they hold dear…that is a basis for their daily lives, daily plans, every aspect of their life. I think we need to approach it from more of a human rights perspective so that we can develop coalitions of women’s rights groups, religious groups, all sorts of groups that care about human rights issues to address the broader issue.

Because, I think one of the problems is – I think, Chris – some people tend to think that if you’re against Islamic Supremacism you’re a person that is an “islamaphobe”, you’re a person that…you see, people that…critics think they hate all Muslims…pigeonholing in the mainstream media. I think we need to change that argument by looking at the supremacist nature of the threat.

Carter: Awesome. Now, you talk about, you know, you mention the girls with the acid in their face. You know, their is stoning, like that little girl that was killed in Somalia a couple weeks ago…that, it…it is just totally tragic. But you’ve got, from a human rights standpoint the Muslims have somehow managed – and Jeffrey, this just totally blows my mind – but they’ve somehow managed to create a separate Human Rights document than the rest of the entire world. What does this Cairo Declaration of Human Rights accomplish for the Islamic Supremacists in terms of Human Rights?

Imm: Well, it goes back to the nineties. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam was signed August 5th 1990, and it was accepted in the year 2000 by a group of 57, representing 57 nations, called the Organization of the Islamic Conference, also known as the OIC. And the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam tries to do an alternative to what other Human Rights Organizations have posed to try and protect Human Rights, except the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights says that people have “freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with Islamic Sharia.” And, so, the whole concept is: Yes, we’ll give you freedom as long as it’s within our Islamic Supremacist ideology.

Imagine, if you will, if White Supremacism had been the global force that Islamic Supremacism is and the people that supported apartheid had done a Declaration on Human Rights and they said, “We’ll give you freedom and right to a dignified life as long as it’s in accordance with apartheid.” Imagine how absurd and how widely rejected and renounced that would be around the world.

However, when the same thing is done with Islamic Supremacism and this Cairo Declaration, the United Nations talks about it, it’s considered an official document, it is viewed as a fine piece of work in the Human Rights field. And, of course, it’s not. What it is…is a phony document which uses the term “human rights” to try and justify Supremacism – an exclusionary, segregationist ideology. And it’s certainly something that all Human rights activists should be standing up against.

Carter: I hope other people can kinda see the…how crazy this world is that we are living in and what they’re doing with all of this stuff. Now does the co…

Imm: Well, you…

Carter: I’m sorry, go ahead…

Imm: …You know, it’s – just one thing – the thing is, it’s now 2008 going on 2009. We’ve really had this problem, with let’s say the Cairo Declaration for nearly twenty years. And, we’ve had the problem since 9/11 for seven years, so it’s taking time for people to wake up. But, I really think that we have to address Human Rights organizations because until we take a different tack, other than what we have…until we establish that we’re challenging Islamic Supremacism, so that we’re not accused of quote unquote being Islamophobes, [until we expose the Human Rights abuses of the Islamic Supremacist] political ideology, we are not going to make headway. And I think that is the key aspect, right there.

Carter: Do you think the Koranic form of Shariah, that you mentioned earlier, and the Islamic Human Rights pose a threat to our equality and liberty?

Imm: Yeah, well, the thing is…Shariah is intended to be a lifestyle legal code, if you will. It is supposed to have…its based on the Koran, the Hadith, something called the ijma - its a consensus of Islamic scholars – and various reasoning that uses analogies to apply precedents from other holy texts not covered. So, it’s got those four components. But, in the basis for all of that, and people go into a lot of the detail…but, the basis for all of that, is to have a basis for governing all aspects of life.

And, I think the key thing that Americans don’t quite understand is that when they say all aspects of life, they mean all. They don’t mean some. There is no separation between the secular and the sacred. It is all aspects of life. And the challenge is – in dealing with Islamic Supremacism, you have a legal code which says that you have to do everything according to this legal code in your entire life. And that is the basis for ordering a society based on a supremacist ideology.

Now, in relativist terms, we have never faced a supremacist enemy that has been this organized, this detailed, and this structured…to have a legal code that basically defines the doctrine of supremacism. Certainly, we had legal codes in White Supremacist nations…certainly in various white supremacist states in the United States that adopted certain aspects of life; and, they were disgraceful, and we put them down and walked away from them – we’ve gone beyond that. But, Shariah is not just legal code for some aspects of life, it’s for every aspect of life.

So, unlike the other threats that we have had and other supremacist ideologies we’ve faced, this one has a segmented legal code for every aspect of life. And that, I think, is the larger challenge; because, when people see things like Shariah Finance or they see other aspects of Sharia being promoted, they think “Well, this is someone else promoting just a religious view” and they don’t understand the actual supremacist legal code that it is actually trying to promote.

Carter: Yeah, well we could probably do two or three shows worth of information on Shariah Law. That was hard enough to squirt it into this one. But, I kinda wanted to stay in the lane, here… I look at Europe as a good indicator of what not to do, really. It is bad enough over there, right now… You’ve got the United Kingdom – as a matter of fact they have just implemented some elements of Shariah Law, recently. Why do you think the UK is failing in their domestic struggle against the Islamic Supremacists?

Imm: Well, you know, one thing I think it is easy to forget, is that the United States has some real unique history. I mean, afterall, the reason the United States of America exists is because it decided to break away from the United Kingdom because the United States had a decision that it was going to defend the inalienable rights of equality and liberty no matter what the United Kingdom decided. So, I mean, I think you need to also remember that – in terms of historical perspective.

Now, of course, over hundreds of years, Britain and the United Kingdom have changed, and certainly there has been more adoption of laws and growth in that country that has allowed it to appreciate and have a greater respect for issues of equality. But, if you take a look at their history and their legal aspects…I mean…I don’t think you’re going to find a place in London where you are going to find the words “All men are created equal” pounded in marble in the wall somewhere. That’s, that’s what the United States is about. We do more than just defend these ideas. We have monuments to them. They’re so important – so inherent to our identity – they define us differently from other parts of the world that don’t take it as seriously.

And, I think the challenge is the UK was historically an Empire. And, because it was historically an Empire, it tried to get along with diverse ideologies that it didn’t necessarily agree with because in having an empire, an international empire of countries around the world, it had to deal with groups, beliefs that it normally would not accept in its own country. Now, the challenge is: that empire mentality, as it started to scale back really came home to challenge the United Kingdom because a number of people from those former empire nations ended up migrating to the United Kingdom and bringing some of their ideologies with them. Now, the United Kingdom did not have as strong a backbone as say the United States did in these issues and because of that it was a greater threat.

The United Kingdom responded in the late twentieth century by trying to create something called a Covenant of Security. This has been documented, repeatedly, in numerous places. Basically, the idea was that the UK had what I guess we’ll call a “Gentleman’s agreement” (so called) between Islamic Supremacists and members in the UK government that listen – “As long as you don’t threaten us here in the UK we will let you continue to do your ideological development…and, particularly, if you want to do plans for actions in other parts of the world, we’re not gonna come down on you hard because we just don’t want you causing trouble here.” Unfortunately, that is a very cowardly position. The UK found out what that would mean in 2005 with the London underground bombings.

Unfortunately, you can’t undo the decades of appeasement the UK had towards Islamic Supremacism in three years. And so, they had this back and forth position of – they’ll get tough and then let somebody go, they’ll get tough and somebody will be ignored, they’ll get tough and Islamic Supremacism will rise again. So, they’re not consistent, if you will. And because of that, they’ve been trying to find out…”Well, where can we go? How can we move this forward in some sort of a consistent path in dealing with Islamic Supremacism?” And what they’ve basically decided to do is adopt something called counter-radicalization.

And the idea behind counter-radicalization is to try and use tactics of engagement and support within a community to prevent someone from “radicalizing”. And what they mean by radicalizing is not what we would mean by radicalizing. What they mean by “radicalizing” is someone who will promote violence specifically to the United Kingdom. What we might view as “radicalizing” is somebody who promotes Islamic Supremacism. That doesn’t mean the same thing over in the UK.

So, the idea behind counter-radicalism is an extension, if you will, of this Covenant of Security…where, basically, the idea is if we can sort of bring people into the fold of political activity, even if they’re supremacists, that’s ok, because at least we can avoid them from having violence over seas. The same thing you’ll see – which is why Hamas has been so powerful in the UK and why Hezbollah just recently was named as a Terrorist Organization in the past couple months – you’ll see that these groups that have – Islamic Supremacist groups that have jihadi activities that are largely outside of the UK have significant power base in the UK because they believe that they provide a basis, a safe haven if you will, as part of this continuing Covenant of Security. The problem is, in the U.S. is that some American counterterrorists have come to believe that they should use the same tactics in our country.

Carter: There’s another show right there. I’ll tell you what…when you look at it in the terms that you frame it in with Islamic Supremacism, the Nazi movement, the KKK…I can’t imagine the UK – going back to World War II – saying, “Hey, we’ll talk to Goebbells; we’ll talk to Hitler as long as they promise that they are not going to attack us.” It’s like they have got their head in the sand…

Imm: Well, you remember a UK with Winston Churchill. And, you know, if you take a look before Winston Churchill – when you look in the Chamberlain years that basically was the type of UK you had. The reality is, the reason why Chamberlain was elected PM was he was popular. He represented the belief of a lot of people of that time. So, there were a lot of people that were supporting and in support of Chamberlain. So, I think the thing is what happened to the UK with Churchill, who was half American, was that Churchill helped deal with an immediate threat, ok. And I think that is certainly a part of the UK mentality. They are certainly willing to defend themselves. You know, but it has been so long since Churchill…it’s tough to see if that’s gonna come back, it’s not there now.

Carter: Yeah, it seems like we’ve kind of subsidized them ever since the Cold War and the end of World War II and they’re just kinda sittin’ back on their hands, they don’t wanna do anything anymore…and that goes for all of Europe. But, then, looking at that, what does the United States need to do for us to win the war of ideas against Islamic Supremacism?

Imm: Well, the first thing they need to do is they need to recognize there is a war of ideas, and as we’ve probably mentioned, the Authorization for Use of Military Force previously…We don’t really name the enemy. That’s huge. You can’t fight a war where you don’t define an enemy. And basically it was a reaction with the nineteen – I’m sorry – the 2001 September Authorization for Use of Military Force, which talked about us taking action against (quote)”those responsible for the attacks launched against the United States, including those nations, organizations, or persons” the President determines were responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

The challenge is we never went back to that other than the 9/11 Commission Report and actually said “these are the groups that we are at war with, now, guys, ok.” We never amended that Authorization for Use of Military Force. So, we have never really defined who the enemy is. Now, the 9/11 Commission Report does make an attempt to do that – but it’s buried. It’s buried on page 562 of all places. It talks about something called “Islamist Terrorism, being a derivative of Islamism, which is an anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the Caliphate.” Now, that should have been on page 1, ok…and it should have been discussed throughout the text…the truth is, it’s buried in the Notes. And, I mean, it is very hard to find any type of official definition of the enemy. And, unfortunately, I keep referring to this part of the 9/11 Commission Report. I have never, yet…heard anybody else who refers to it. And that’s very sad. I mean, that is a key part of the 9/11 Commission Report. But there is not a single one of our American government leaders that I have heard of that is taking that part or Islamic Supremacism per se and saying, “We must define the enemy as X.”

You can’t leave an enemy undefined and win a war of ideas against it.

But, beyond the American governmental leaders, the United States is much more than that. America, the United States, is its people. And what we need to do to win the war of ideas against Islamic Supremacism is we have to look at our own lives, we have to look at what does equality and liberty mean to us, our neighbors, our friends, our families…is it worth fighting for? We need to make that decision, on a personal – one by one basis – and I think if we did examine the importance of equality and liberty to the import, to the value, to all of our relationships, the coherence of our society, the very basic nature of what it means to be an American…I think the American public would be able to better confront the supremacist enemy.

But, I think a couple things have to happen: they have to identify how valuable equality and liberty is in their life and then they have to say, “Listen, we are not going to let it happen here.” And we have to start with the United States and say, “Ok, maybe we can’t change all the world but we can change the United States.” And those people who are Islamic Supremacists in the United States, we are going to treat them like we would treat the KKK or neo-nazi individuals marching up and down the street, we are going to show them the same amount of contempt, the same amount of disrespect and the same amount of ridicule that their anti-equality ideologies would get.

And I think, when we start to treat Islamic Supremacists, in the United States, the same way as we would treat any other supremacist ideology – and I don’t mean…not just the public…but our government and all the aspects of our businesses our finance. When we treat supremacists equally, whether they’re Islamic Supremacists, White Supremacists, Aryan Supremacists or any other supremacist ideology – when we treat supremacists equally, then we will begin to win the war of ideas.

But, I think we cannot treat Islamic Supremacists off on a side differently than we would treat any other supremacist organization. Can you imagine the Dow Jones setting up a special financial organization to track White Supremacist stocks and finance? They’d be run out of business. And can you imagine our government having relations with – and bringing up to Capitol Hill – White Supremacists to argue why their ideology is right? Or sending our government representatives to conferences to meet with and engage with White Supremacist Organizations. It wouldn’t happen in today’s America. And we have to be consistent. We have to be equal. That’s what we’re about. We’re about equality. And, if we treat all supremacist organizations equal, then we have to treat Islamic Supremacism just like we would treat any other supremacist organization…and that is how we will win the war of ideas.

Carter: Man, you are spot on. I keep going back to your philosophy. I mean, you talk to people about the War on Terror, the Long War…and they’ll say “This whole Islamic thing…I know plenty of nice, moderate Muslims.” You totally take that away with your tack – nobody is really going to say, “I know plenty of really nice neo-nazis, they don’t hurt anybody.” That just totally undermines that whole pedestal that they can stand on.

Imm: You know, here is the thing Chris. At the end of the day, there are some people that believe that we can have some type of reform within Islam. Whether that’s ever to happen or not is up to Muslims in the world. But you cannot have reform if you do not confront Supremacism. In the sixties, a lot of people had to change their point of view. And the issue with White Supremacism was going on for a long time in America, but we fought a hundred year war over it. After the civil war was over, we continued that battle right up through the 1960s and all the way to today. So, I mean, we fought a long war and finally got serious about it and said “Look, we are going to have to change our point of view.” And the reason why people changed their point of view was they finally came to the recognition that they had to live up to the courage of their convictions that all men are created equal.

And if it wasn’t for that fact, that we treated all people equal, we wouldn’t be the country we are today. And, I think it is very important to stress to people of all political persuasion and all aspects of life that Equality is fundamental to our values and our identity. We wouldn’t have…Barack Obama wouldn’t be President, today, if we didn’t believe that all men were created equal in the fundamental definition of the United States of America. And if we believe that we could confront that supremacist ideology, where a majority – or certainly a large portion in the United States – it wasn’t a small minority, ok…there were 1.4 million members of the KKK, so it wasn’t a small minority, so called – it was a huge number. If we could confront that, we can confront Islamic Supremacism.

And we must do it here in the United States, now. If we don’t confront Islamic Supremacism in the United States, asking other countries to confront Islamic Supremacism is kidding ourselves because they can say, “Oh, well what have you done?” And if we’ve got people that are in Islamic Supremacist organizations going up to Capitol Hill and speaking without any criticism, then we can’t have the moral justification to criticize those who will support Islamic Supremacism in other countries. So, it is imperative in winning the war of ideas that we confront Islamic Supremacism here in the United States.

Carter: That’s right – we got serious in the war of ideas against the White Supremacist movement. You know, we’ve done it before. We can do it again. You’re absolutely right. And it is just going to take getting serious about it. Identifying who the enemy is – the most basic thing, I would think. You know, when you go to battle: Who’s the enemy? That’s the first thing you need to know. And I’m sure we’re probably going to get a lot of reaction to this, Jeffrey Imm, but the one question I would imagine is on a lot of people’s minds right now: Is there anything that the average man on the street can do to join this war of ideas…you know, just the average Joe…Joe the Plumber, Joe the whatever…can do to join this war of ideas against the supremacism of Islam?

Imm: Yeah, I think the issue is…I addressed this a while back in an article called “Courage in the Long War Against Islamic Supremacism and Jihad”. I think the first thing that we need to do as individuals and individual communities we need to identify where we see problems with Islamic Supremacism in our communities, we need to identify where we’ve got challenges in our communities on a city by city, county by county, state by state basis. We need to get together as groups of individuals to try and confront the issue. I know there are groups that are starting to expand in different states in the country, that are trying to build up coalitions to confront Islamic Supremacism – and I think we need to join those groups, identify and find out where they are…and we have to set up groups in our individual cities and our individual towns that will address the issues and make sure that when there are people that support this ideology – we are standing against it. The other thing we have to do is we have to have discussions at libraries and townhall meetings and we have to be able to – if we have to have marches in the streets or rallies – but we have to make the public aware that we are dealing with a supremacist ideology. Because, the challenge is – we have to overcome this incredible amount of denial by some of our leadership, by the mainstream media, to try and re-educate people as to what the real threat is. So, we are going to have to do it on a multiple tier level.

I believe what we actually have to do is we have to have a political action organization to fight this on Capitol Hill as well. But we can do it one little group and one small town at a time, going to shopping malls, going to libraries, going to…to having rallies. We can do it with small groups of individuals and we can make a difference.

Carter: Well, folks…listeners at Unto the Breach radio, here…I hope that your mind has been blown by Jeffrey Imm because not only has he told you something – made something so simple that was complex – I mean, we also have a plan to move forward. Jeffrey Imm, I thank you so much for showing up on the show…tell us where we can go to read – you’ve got fantastic articles, man…where can my audience go to read your articles?

Imm: We have two websites…one is the Anti Jihad League of America at anti-jihad.org and the other website is UnitedStatesAction which also has all of my articles and has additional information on emergency preparedness – again that’s UnitedStatesAction.com and the other website is anti-jihad.org.

Carter: Well, Jeffrey, thank you so much for coming on the program. Hopefully, we can get together and do this again. There is so much that you write about that I wanted to incorporate into this interview here, but like I said…I needed to stay in my lanes and kinda keep it tight, but we look forward to talking to you again some time.

Imm: Thank you very much, Chris…I look forward to talking to you.

Carter: Awesome, thank you very much.