“Islamists vs. Muslims”

Andrew McCarthy and “Patriotic” Muslims


Earlier this month author and former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy gave  a terrific, informative, and comprehensive address  at The Center for Security Policy at the National Press Club. It was principally  an answer and a rebuttal to the criticisms of a group of five House  representatives who called for a multi-agency investigation into the backgrounds  of numerous Muslims now employed in various capacities in those agencies. One of  those letters went to deputy inspector general of the State Department, and one  of the persons named in the letter was Huma  Abedin, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s deputy  chief of staff.

McCarthy was the point man in the prosecution of  Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik,” over the 1993 World Trade  Center  bombing. He is a Republican conservative with a libertarian bent who writes for  National Review.

Abedin, it seems, has very close family ties to the Muslim  Brotherhood, an Islamist supremacist  organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the conquest of the  United States (if not its destruction, as well). The Mainstream  Media and its allies on the Left immediately  charged Michele Bachmann, representative from Minnesota, with alleging that  Abedin is an operative or spy for the Brotherhood. McCarthy and others have  countered with the facts: that Bachmann, based on knowledge that Abedin  especially has had family connections with the Brotherhood, suggested that  perhaps she had not been as thoroughly vetted as a possible security risk.  Bachmann and her colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee were requesting  an investigation of the vetting of Abedin and other individuals. And nothing  more.

The ensuing attack  on Bachmann gave Senator John  McCain of Arizona a chance to grandstand in Congress in Abedin’s defense.  Abedin and McCain, apparently, are friends. However, he committed the same error  as the mainstream media made, and interpreted Bachmann’s request for an  investigation as an allegation of “guilt by association.”

McCarthy not  only deflated such a charge in his Center for Security Policy speech, but  provided ample evidence that the Brotherhood has indeed infiltrated the highest  ranks of government for the purpose of influencing American foreign policy.  During his speech, he said he could not now say how many Muslims were in  positions of influence or even had access to security-sensitive documents.
However, there was a reservation in McCarthy’s depiction of the Islamic  peril. That reservation compromises and qualifies everything else he had to say.  These are the troubling paragraphs. The non-bolded Italics are  mine:

Now, let me be clear about what I said and what I didn’t say. I said Islamist influences, I did not say Muslims. I don’t know  how many Muslims work in the U.S. government, but I feel pretty safe saying  there are thousands. As a federal prosecutor on terrorism cases, I had the  privilege of working with several of them. These were patriotic American  Muslims, and a number of Muslims who may not be Americans but who have embraced  America and the West. Without them, we could not have infiltrated jihadist cells  in New York and stopped terrorists from killing thousands of people.   Without them, we could not have translated, understood and processed our  evidence so it could be presented to a jury as a compelling narrative.  Pro-American Muslims serve honorably in government,  in our military, in our intelligence services, and in our major  institutions. We are lucky to have them because they have embraced  the culture of individual liberty that is the beating heart of Western  civilization. They have accepted the premise of our society that everyone  has a right to freedom of conscience and equality before the law. They have  accepted our foundational principle that free people are at liberty to make law  for themselves, irrespective of the rules of any belief system or ideology. They  construe Islam’s spiritual elements and its laws as a matter of private  conscience, not as a mandatory framework for society. (Italics  mine.) Those Muslims are not Islamists.

What is troubling is that this is a common sentiment among virtually all  well-read, knowledgeable, and actively out-spoken anti- and  counter-jihadist writers and observers. The only Muslims I would  completely trust with my life would be apostates: Ayaan  Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Wafa  Sultan, and a handful of others. These individuals have repudiated Islam in  its entirety, discarded it as moral code, and warned that there can be no such  thing as a moderate Islam. They have acknowledged that there is no such thing as  a “moderate,” peace-loving Muslim, either, that there is no halfway point  between obeying Allah’s commands and the laws of man-made governments, which  Allah decreed, through Mohammad, were an “abomination.”

Parenthetically, the concept of a conscience is strictly religious in  nature, by which one’s explicitly held moral principles are at variance with the  more pragmatic or “practical” actions one must take to pursue one’s ends. As  such a dichotomy, a conscience serves more as a leash rather than as a  guide to moral action.


This entry was posted in DEFENCE, Islam, New World Order, Post America and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s