Google+ Followers

Thursday, April 24, 2014

The terror group aims to establish an Islamist state in northern Nigeria. The group is known for targeting secondary schools, Boko Haram Kidnaps 200 Schoolgirls for Cooks, Sex Slaves

At least 200 girls were abducted by the Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram in northeastern Nigeria. 
Boko Haram, which literally means "Western education is a sin," aims to establish an Islamist state in northern Nigeria. The group is known for brutally targeting secondary schools, in which scores ofboys have been slaughtered by the group by burning and shooting attacks.
The girls had been called back to their school to take their final exams when the middle-of-the-night attack occurred. The regional government had closed all of 85 of its secondary schools and sent 120,000 students home because of previous attacks.
The terrorists, arriving in trucks, vans and buses, overpowered soldiers guarding the school and herded the girls into the vehiclesafter burning homes and businesses in the area. The group is known to have kidnapped girls in the past to be used as cooks and sex slaves.
Reports on the attack came from a number of girls who managed to escape.

Egyptian Women Form New Group to Fight Domestic Violence A group of Egyptian women in the Sinai have been coordinating efforts to expose and fight human rights abuses by the army and Islamists

A group of Egyptian women calling themselves "Egyptian Women Supporting Human Rights in the Conflict Area in the Sinai Peninsula" launched a campaign "Women Against Violence, Stop the Violence Against Women." The goal of the campaign is to expose the human rights abuses carried out by the Egyptian armed forces and by the Islamist militants.
The group has collected testimonies from women who reported having experienced harassment at work, on the street or at home. The most frequest form of harassment is verbal. In addition, armed personnel are known to break into homes and workplaces in the search for wanted outlaws or terrorists.
The towns of Rafiah and Alshech Zweid have the highest rates of violations of women’s and children’s rights in the areas of conflict in northern Sinai.
To date, women’s group has trained 20 women from Rafiah, Bir Alabed, El Arish and Alshech Zweid to assist women who have been affected by the violence.

Muslim Brotherhood Entity in US Boasts of Gov’t Embrace When Bin Laden was killed, the Muslim American Society defended his goal of creating an Islamic state in Afghanistan.

The Muslim American Society, which federal prosecutors confirm was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America,” is boasting on its new website of how it’s been embraced by the U.S. government and major interfaith groups. This is shocking, especially since the reaction of MAS to Bin Laden’s death was to defend his goal of creating an Islamic state in Afghanistan.
The renovated MAS website emphasizes its work with law enforcement, the federal government, members of Congress, charities and interfaith organizations. Unlike its previous website, it does not try to address questions about its links to the Muslim Brotherhood and beliefs about the Caliphate and sharia in America.
There is little dispute that MAS is a Muslim Brotherhood entity. AChicago Tribune investigation in 2004 confirmed it, as did senior U.S. Muslim Brotherhood operative Abdurrahman Alamoudi after he was convicted on terrorism-related charges. In 2012, he testified, “Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.”
In 2008, federal prosecutors said in a court filing that “MAS was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” The prosecutors also accused MAS and a related organization, theCouncil on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), of being deceptive. They said the groups “omit reference to a shared background that limits their membership to those of a particular political bent, and undercuts their credibility.”
Yet, somehow the MAS is treated well by the U.S. government. Its website claims it has even received taxpayer money by winning a federal grant through the President’s Faith Based Initiative Program.
In January 2010, MAS joined a group of Muslim organizations (including the Islamic Society of North America, another Brotherhood entity) in meeting with Department of Homeland Security officials, including then-Secretary Janet Napolitano.
The MAS website the meetings’ purpose was to “discuss joint efforts against domestic violent extremists, and to work with the government to address community concerns about DHS policies, such as racial, ethnic, and religious profiling at airports and borders.”
It also claims it trained over 1,500 federal, state and local law enforcement officers on dealing with the Muslim-American community. The Justice Department honored the MAS Outreach Director with an award. MAS says it has trained over 7,000 civic and community activists and hosted a Muslim Community Action Forum with the Governor of Massachusetts.
MAS is very involved in political activism. It is part of a new political coalition of Islamist groups including the Council on American-Islamic RelationsIslamic Circle of North America,Muslim Alliance in North America and American Muslims for Palestine. The objective is to consolidate the Muslim-American vote behind their subtlety-radical agendas.
There is national media recognition of MAS’ Center for Civic Empowerment and its Voting is Power Program. It has also distributed the “first American Muslim ‘Four Year Legislative Agenda’ ” to congressional offices.
Like the other American Islamist groups, MAS is building credibility by allying with interfaith groups. The website says the MAS leadership is on the boards of the following groups:
  • Steering Committee of Religious Non-Governmental Organizations at the United Nations
  • Harvard University’s Islam in the West Program, Muslims in Boston Survey,
  • The Interfaith Alliance
  • Inter-religious Council for Public Life
  • Center for Jewish Muslim Relations
  • Religions for Peace
  • Interfaith Workers Justice
  • Washington D.C. Mayor’s Office on Metropolitan Ministries
  • The Temple of Understanding (hosted by the United Nations)
Part of the reason for MAS’s success is because it is skilled with semantics. The Tribune investigators came across a MAS memo that told members to condemn the vague term of “terrorism,” with the unstated understanding that the term does not include acts of jihad. This is in accordance with the doctrines of taqiyya and tawriya, which permit outright lying in some circumstances and, in other cases, the use of deceptive answers that are designed to give a false impression without crossing the threshold into being a clear lie.
MAS officials have thought carefully about how to present the group as independent. Former MAS president Esam Omeish said, “The Brotherhood does not exist as far as we know in the United States,” but, “We still view them as a good ally.” The Tribune reported on an undated MAS memo that told members to answer questions about its Brotherhood affiliate by saying, “It [MAS] is a self-explanatory name that does not need further explanation.”
After Osama Bin Laden was killed in 2011, MAS issued a press release authored by Khalilah Sabra that endorsed Bin Laden’s goal of creating an Islamic state. It described him as:
“…a visionary who believed in the possibility of an Islamic state in Afghanistan, and the possibility that this thing might someday be. There was nothing wrong with that dream, even if it differs from one that all Americans have here for themselves.”
It again endorsed “that dream of a pure and merciful Islamic state in a Muslim land,” but said Bin Laden “created a nightmare on September 11, 2001” and “became someone we did not know and could not understand.”
MAS subsequently retracted the press release, saying it “does not represent in any way the position of the Muslim American Society and its leadership” and an internal review had begun. It then condemned terrorism, hate and injustice — but it did not condemn Bin Laden’s vision of an Islamic state. It was another example oftawriya.
There’s something clearly wrong when the government embraces the MAS—the same government whose prosecutors said it was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” Either there is a serious information-sharing problem or the officials in charge simply don’t care about the history of MAS. Neither answer gives us reason to have confidence in the government on this issue.

National Intel Misled Congress About Brotherhood Contacts An exclusive report based on newly declassified documents obtained by the Clarion Project

Newly declassified documents obtained by the Clarion Project show that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) misled members of Congress in 2012 about its involvement withMuslim Brotherhood-linked entities.
Further, the documents show that there were even a number of internal communications within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressing concerns about the Brotherhood links of these entities.
The story of the deception began when the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified to Congress on February 10, 2011 saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is “a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has described Al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.”
In the same hearing, Clapper was asked by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) about the administration’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. He answered, “There have been outreaches to the Muslim community in general, but I guess we’re not aware of any direct outreach to these particular organizations. That is, if you’re speaking domestically.”
FBI Director Mueller then chimed in, saying there is “no relationship with the Brotherhood. Period.” The CIA Director Leon Panetta then agreed, dismissively laughing in the process.
Clapper’s office later issued a clarification, backtracking on his inaccurate statement that the Brotherhood is “secular.”
Just four months later, on June 12, 2012, a 90-minute “Roundtable Discussion” took place at National Intelligence’s headquarters in McLean, Virginia. At the meeting, Clapper met in person with a representative of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Also present were National Counter-Terrorism Center Director Matthew Olson and Alexander Joel, ODNI Civil Liberties Protection Officer.
The email invitation ISNA received to participate in a "Round-Table" discussionThe email invitation ISNA received to participate in a "Round-Table" discussion
In 2007, the Justice Department listed ISNA as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and designated them as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial of the history of the U.S. In that trial, the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood front, was found guilty of funding Hamas.
Yet in 2012, the president of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Magid, was invited to meet with the Director of National Intelligence. Unable to attend, he sent a substitute in his place.
The email that went out inviting ISNA’s president (among others) stated that he was chosen because, “We believe you have important insights to share with the Intelligence Community (IC) about how the IC pursues its mandate of providing the most insightful intelligence possible, while simultaneously safeguarding civil liberties and privacy.”
Magid’s replacement was ISNA’s Director of Community Outreach, Mohamed Elsanousi.
Email to ISNA's Director of Community Outreach Elsanousi to participate in the discussion with the Direcotr of National Intelligence Email to ISNA's Director of Community Outreach Elsanousi to participate in the discussion with the Direcotr of National Intelligence
Elsanousi's apparent supervisor is former ISNA-Secretary General, Sayyid Syeed, the National Director of ISNA’s Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances. In the Grand Deception, a documentary about the Muslim Brotherhood in America, Syeed appears in footage taken in 2006 declaring, “Our job is to change the Constitution of America.”
Shortly after meeting Clapper, Elsanousi accompanied Magid to aconference in Mauritania hosted by a top leader of a major Muslim Brotherhood organization named the International Union of Muslim Scholars.
The day after the meeting, on June 13, 2012, five members of Congress asked the Director of National Intelligence’s Intelligence Community Inspector-General, I. Charles McCullough III, to begin a formal investigation or evaluation of the Director of National Intelligence’s work with groups linked to the Brotherhood, specifically mentioning the Islamic Society of North America and its leader, Magid.
One month later, on July 11, 2012, the Inspector-General denied the congresspersons’ request, citing Clapper’s earlier statement that there was no relationship with domestic organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. He said, “These statements remain accurate.” 
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s denial of any government engagement with U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities is even more shocking considering the history of internal emails sent around the ODNI.
Declassified emails obtained by the Clarion Project show that staff inside the ODNI expressed concern about ISNA, even suggesting interagency intelligence-gathering on the organization. The author(s) of the internal emails also wanted intelligence gathering on the Council on American-Islamic Relations, another group labeled by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Like ISNA, the Justice Department listed CAIR as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
The heavily redacted ODNI emails, written sometime between January 2009 and August 2012, read: 
“I’m also interested if our team could work with the FBI and DHS on any Muslim Brotherhood collection and analysis opportunities such as looking at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) ongoing relationships with MB int’l leadership and enterprises.”
Another internal email says: 
“The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has a similarly checkered background, spotlighted by prominent deportations and indictments of CAIR members for support to Hamas and other extremist organizations.”
On June 10, 2010 an email was written by someone within the ODNI’s National Counter-Terrorism Center referencing internal discussions about engagement with Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups. It reads, “We have a large MB [Muslim Brotherhood] presence on the West Coast, and there has been some discussion here about engagement—both state and federal—with folks who are also MB members.” The author then gives examples, but they are censored from viewing.
Further, by the time ISNA was invited to a “discussion” with Clapper at the National Intelligence headquarters, ISNA’s history was a Muslim Brotherhood entity was well known to everyone.
Two years after the Holy Land trial, in 2009, Federal Judge Jorge A.Solis upheld the designation of ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator, citing “ample” evidence linking it to the Brotherhood network assisting Hamas. He specifically said that the Holy Land Foundation “operated from within ISNA” and checks destined for Hamas reached the Foundation through an ISNA bank account.
Declassified FBI memos and internal Muslim Brotherhood documents identify ISNA as a Brotherhood entity. A 1991 U.S. Brotherhood explanatory memorandum lists ISNA as the first of 29 of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” ISNA-Canada lost its status as a charity last year because of evidencelinking it to Pakistani terrorists and major accounting discrepancies.
You can read Clarion’s documented report on ISNA here.
The members of Congress – and the American people – have a right to know the truth: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence does have a relationship with domestic organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood – and, it is a truth that needs a formal evaluation and investigation.

Tony Blair: Fighting Islamism – A Defining Challenge of Our Time Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a landmark speech yesterday calling on the world to unite against Islamism.

Tony Blair, the Former British Prime Minister, delivered a keynote speech at Bloomberg HQ in London entitled 'Why the Middle East Still Matters.' In it he described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today.
He argued "there are four reasons why the Middle East remains of central importance and cannot be relegated to the second order."
The first three: oil, proximity to Europe and Israel, whilst important, were not the focus of the speech. Blair rapidly moved on to the fourth and most important reason: Islamic extremism also known as Islamism.
He identifies the conflict in the Middle East as one between an open and tolerant viewpoint and a fundamentalist Islamist ideology. He said "wherever you look – from Iraq to Libya to Egypt to Yemen to Lebanon to Syria and then further afield to Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan – this is the essential battle."
Addressing those who regard these conflicts as distinct he said "there is something frankly odd about the reluctance to accept what is so utterly plain: that they have in common a struggle around the issue of the rightful place of religion, and in particular Islam, in politics."
It is this central point that he hammered home again and again over the course of his 40 minute speech.
He argued that this struggle does not end at the borders of the region. Rather, "The reason this matters so much is that this ideology is exported around the world." 
He asked listeners to "Take a step back and analyze the world today: with the possible exception of Latin America (leaving aside Hezbollah in the tri-border area in South America), there is not a region of the world not adversely affected by Islamism and the ideology is growing."
He notes that "The Muslim population in Europe is now over 40m and growing. The Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations are increasingly active and they operate without much investigation or constraint. Recent controversy over schools in Birmingham (and similar allegations in France) show heightened levels of concern about Islamist penetration of our own societies."
The main thrust of the speech focused on "two fascinating things."
"The first is the absolutely rooted desire on the part of Western commentators to analyze these issues as disparate rather than united by common elements. They go to extraordinary lengths to say why, in every individual case, there are multiple reasons for understanding that this is not really about Islam, it is not really about religion; there are local or historic reasons which explain what is happening. There is a wish to eliminate the obvious common factor in a way that is almost wilful."
Predictably, opponents took the opportunity to argue exactly that. For example, the Guardian's summary quoted a Saudi Daily paper which blamed Israel. Commentator Mehdi Hassan blamed Tony Blair himself for the problem, because of the Iraq war.
Blair went on to argue "The second thing is that there is a deep desire to separate the political ideology represented by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood from the actions of extremists including acts of terrorism."
He acknowledged the motivation behind these fears, saying "We feel almost that if we identify it in these terms, we’re being anti-Muslim, a sentiment on which the Islamists cleverly play."
Blair swept these distinctions aside, acknowledging the laudable motives behind such interpretations, but ultimately pinpointing the profound danger posed by the Islamist ideology, and that it is fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.
He urged the West and indeed the entire world, to unite against the ideology Islamic extremism.
Former Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane compared the speech to Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain address. Douglas Murrayargued in the Spectator that Blair went too far in his efforts to brand Islamism as disconnected from Islam and called on moderate Muslims to help combat radicalism by driving extremists from their communities.
Blair outlined potential foreign policy options for the West vis-a-vis various Middle Eastern countries in order to combat Islamists and to support religiously open and tolerant elements.
In particular he focused on Egypt saying "on the fate of Egypt hangs the future of the region. Here we have to understand plainly what happened. The Muslim Brotherhood government was not simply a bad government. It was systematically taking over the traditions and institutions of the country. The revolt of 30 June 2013 was not an ordinary protest. It was the absolutely necessary rescue of a nation."
All of these different policies are facets of the same policy: that "across the region we should be standing steadfast by our friends and allies as they try to change their own countries in the direction of reform. Whether in Jordan or the Gulf where they’re promoting the values of religious tolerance and open, rule based economies, or taking on the forces of reaction in the shape of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, we should be supporting and assisting them."
Perhaps this statement by Blair sums up the message of his keynote speech best: "When we consider the defining challenges of our time, surely this one should be up there along with the challenge of the environment or economic instability."

Monday, April 21, 2014


Who is ultimately responsible for the ongoing attacks on Christians and their churches throughout the Islamic world?
Focusing on one of the most obvious nations where Christians are regularly targeted—Egypt’s Coptic Christians—one finds that the “mob” is the most visible and obvious culprit.  One Copt accused of some transgression against Muslim sensibilities—from having relations with a Muslim woman, to ruining a Muslim man’s shirt—is often enough to prompt Muslim mobs to destroy entire Christian villages and their churches.

Recently, for example, after her cross identified Mary Saleh George as a Christian, a pro-Muslim Brotherhood mob attacked, beat, and slaughtered her.
However, a recent Arabic op-ed titled “Find the True Killer of Mary” attempts to look beyond the mob to identify the true persecutor of Christians in Egypt.  According to the op-ed:
Those who killed the young and vulnerable Mary Saleh George, for hanging a cross in her car, are not criminals, but rather wretches who follow those who legalized for them murder, lynching, dismemberment, and the stripping bare of young Christian girls—without every saying “kill.”  [Islamic cleric] Yassir Burhami and his colleagues who announce their hate for Christians throughout satellite channels and in mosques—claiming that hatred of Christians is synonymous with love for God—they are the true killers who need to be tried and prosecuted…  The slayers of Mary Saleh are simply a wretched mob, with the body of a bull but the brain of a worm.  It’s not the puppets on the string who need punishing, but rather the mastermind who moves the puppets with his bloody fingers behind closed curtains that needs punishing.
One fact certainly validates this Arabic op-ed’s assertions: the overwhelming majority of attacks on Christians in Egypt and other Muslim nations—including the slaughter of Mary Saleh George—occur on Friday, the one day of the week that Muslims congregate in mosques for communal prayers and to hear sermons.
The significance of this fact can easily be understood by analogy: what if Christians were especially and consistently violent to non-Christian minorities on Sunday—right after they got out of church?  What would that say about what goes on in Christian churches?
What does it say about what goes on in Muslim mosques?
The Arabic op-ed also does well to name Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami as one of those who “announce their hate for Christians throughout the satellite channels and in mosques, claiming that hatred of Christians is synonymous with love for God.”
For example, Dr. Burhami—the face of Egypt’s Salafi movement—once issued a fatwa, or Islamic edict, forbidding Muslim taxi- and bus-drivers from transporting Coptic Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as “more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar.”
As for literally hating non-Muslim “infidels,” some Islamic clerics—most specifically Salafis, who pattern their lives as literally as possible on Muhammad’s and his companions’—believe that the doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity” (or wala’ wa bara’)commands Muslims never to befriend or be loyal to non-Muslims.
Burhami himself appears on video asserting that if a Muslim man marries a Christian or Jewish woman (known in Islamic parlance as “People of the Book”)—even he must still hate his wife, because she is an infidel.
When asked at a conference how Islam can allow a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman and yet expect him to hate her, Burhami expounded as follows:
Where’s the objection? Do all men love their wives?  How many married couples live together despite disagreements and problems? Huh? That being the case, he [Muslim husband] may love the way she [non-Muslim wife] looks, or love the way she raises the children, or love that she has money. This is why he’s discouraged from marrying among the People of the Book—because she has no [real] religion. He is ordered to make her hate her religion while continuing marriage/sexual relations with her. This is a very standard matter….  Of course he should tell her that he hates her religion. He must show her that he hates her because of her religion, and because she is an infidel. But if possible, treat her well—perhaps that will cause her to convert to Islam. He should invite her to Islam and call her to Allah….  In fact, let me tell you: whoever rapes a woman, does he necessarily love her? Or is he just sleeping with her? He’s sleeping with her for her body’s sake only, and he does not love her in reality, because if he loved her, he wouldn’t have hurt her. Therefore it is possible to have sexual relations [between a Muslim man and a Christian or Jewish woman] without love. This is possible, but as we said, he is commanded to hate her (emphasis added).
Burhami even said that the Muslim husband cannot initiate greetings to his non-Muslim wife when he comes home—according to the teachings of Islam’s prophet as recorded in the hadith.
Like all other Islamic clerics, Burhami justified “infidel-wife-hating” by quoting some of the Koran verses that form the cornerstone of the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity:
Otherwise what do you do with the undisputed texts [of the Koran], such as “Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist [or reject submission to] Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred… “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors…”  [Koran 58:22 and 5:51, Yusuf Ali translation].  What do you do with such a verse? What do you do will all these verses?
Indeed, what does a Muslim do with all these Koran verses and sayings attributed to Islam’s prophet Muhammad?
Such is the dilemma.
From here it becomes clear that the aforementioned Arabic op-ed discussing the slaughter of Mary Saleh George is only partially correct.  It is true that behind the mindless mob stand Islamic clerics like Burhami, inciting hatred for Christians and other infidels.  But that is not the complete picture; for behind all these clerics stand Islam’s scriptures—the Koran and hadith—commanding enmity for the infidel.
In short, it’s not just a few “radical clerics”—a few “rotten apples—that incite mobs to attack Christians, but rather the core texts of Islam itself.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Why Westernized Muslims Become 'Radicalized'

A new Danish statistical study finds that “Muslims [are] 218 percent more criminal in second generation than first.”  While some of these crimes are clearly related to Islam – such as attackson Muslim apostates to Christianity – others, such as rampant theft against non-Muslims, would appear banal, until one realizes that even robbery and plunder are justified by Islamic doctrine– as one U.K. Muslim cleric once clearly said

The interesting question here is why second-generation Muslims, who are presumably more Westernized than their Muslim parents, are also more “radical.”  Lest one dismiss this phenomenon as a product of economics or some other “grievance” against European host nations, the fact is, even in America, where Muslims are much better assimilated than in Europe, young Muslims are turning to “radicalism.” 
For example, some time back, Attorney General Eric Holder said that “the threat [of terrorism] has changed … to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens – raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born.”
Around the same time, Sue Myrick, then a member of Congress, wrote a particularly candid letter on “radicalization” to President Obama:
For many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalization was not happening inside the United Sates. We believed American Muslims were immune to radicalization because, unlike the European counterparts, they are socially and economically well-integrated into society. There had been warnings that these assumptions were false but we paid them no mind. Today there is no doubt that radicalization is taking place inside America. The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident.
Myrick named several American Muslims as examples of those who, while “embodying the American dream, at least socio-economically,” were still “radicalized,” astutely adding, “The truth is that if grievances were the sole cause of terrorism, we would see daily acts by Americans who have lost their jobs and homes in this economic downturn.”
Quite so.  Yet, though Myrick’s observations were limited to the domestic scene, they raise the following, more cosmic, question: if American Muslims, who enjoy Western benefits – including democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression – are still being radicalized, why do we insist that the importation of these same Western benefits to the Muslim world will eliminate its even more indigenous or authentic form of “radicalization”?
After all, the mainstream position evoked by most politicians maintains that all U.S. sacrifices in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) will pay off once Muslims discover how wonderful Western ways are, and happily slough off their “Islamist” veneer, which, as the theory goes, is a product of – you guessed it – a lack of democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression.
Yet here are American and European Muslims, immersed in the bounties of the West, and still do they turn to violent jihad.  Why think their counterparts, who are born and raised in the Muslim world, where Islam permeates every aspect of life, will respond differently?
In fact, far from eliminating “radicalization,” Western values can actually exacerbate Islamic tendencies – hence why second-generation “Westernized” Muslims are also becoming more “radicalized” than their parents.
Some already known that Western concessions to Islam – in the guise of multiculturalism, “cultural sensitivity,” political correctness, and self-censorship – only bring out the worst of Islam’s “schoolyard bully.”  Yet even some of the most prized aspects of Western civilization – personal freedom, rule of law, human dignity – when articulated through an Islamic framework, have the capacity to “radicalize” Muslims.

Consider: the West’s commitment to the law as supreme arbitrator, for the Westernized Muslim becomes a commitment to establish and enforce Islamic law, sharia; the West’s commitment to democracy, for the Westernized Muslim becomes a commitment to theocracy, including an anxious impulse to resurrect the caliphate; Western notions of human dignity and pride, when articulated through an Islamic paradigm (which sees only fellow Muslims as equals) induces rage when Muslims – Palestinians, Afghanis, Iraqis, etc. – are seen under Western infidel dominion; Western notions of autonomy and personal freedom have even helped “Westernize” the notion of jihad into an individual duty, though it has traditionally been held by sharia as a communal duty.
In short, a set of noble principles articulated through a foreign paradigm can lead to abominations.  In this case, the better principles of Western civilization are being devoured, absorbed, and regurgitated into something equally potent, though from the other end of the spectrum.
Put differently, just as a stress on human freedom, human dignity, and universal justice produces good humans, rearticulating these same concepts through an Islamic framework that qualifies them with the word “Muslim” –Muslim freedom, Muslim dignity, and Muslim justice – leads to what is being called “radicalization.