I recommend a practical book for effective execution of international counterjihad strategy - The Struggle Against Radical Islam: A Donor’s Guide, published in December 2006 by the Philanthropy Roundtable. A concise (59 pages) free download, it suggests a framework for large donors to support “efforts to counter the extremist ideology.” One chapter (”Supporting the Forces of Freedom Abroad”) recalls earlier efforts to help allies fight against earlier forms of totalitarian domination:

During the Cold War the United States created a wide-ranging strategy that supported political forces sympathetic to freedom and pluralism around the world. It did so through a range of institutions, some funded by government and others through private entities…The U.S. government provided assistance to groups such as Resistance International, a coalition of resistance groups in communist countries around the world, and also established the National Endowment for Democracy to facilitate contacts among political parties around the world. In short, the United States had a coherent strategy for identifying friendly political forces, understanding the nature and sources of their support, and discerning how America could aid indigenous anti-communist movements…

…For donors, the challenge is to support projects that effectively implement components of a public diplomacy campaign in key regions of the world.

In this global fight against Islamists, similar political resistance movements are emerging in each country. They face greater difficulties than the earlier indigenous anti-communist movements, and they may find the current U.S. State Department opposing them more than supporting them. The need for private donors to support them is great.

But private donors still face the question of how to support the forces of freedom in the war against Islamist extremism. Here are some suggestions.

In any war, we’d prefer to fight on terrain where we have a chance of winning. In this war of ideas we’re fighting against Islamist totalitarianism, we want to fight on terrain where our constitutional laws and values protect us and give us freedom to maneuver - what Sun Tzu in The Art of War calls the “raised and sunny spots.”

But our governments often refuse to admit that they are under an Information War siege, and they refuse to keep and defend that solid constitutional terrain they’ve received as a legacy from earlier generations. Demoralized by political correctness, they can’t believe that constitutional laws and Western values are the high ground - both moral and strategic. So, we are left to fight the war of ideas on dangerous terrain of a very different type - what Sun Tzu calls “entangling terrain”:

Ground which can be abandoned but is hard to re-occupy is called entangling. From a position of this sort, if the enemy is unprepared, you may sally forth and defeat him. but if the enemy is prepared for your coming, and you fail to defeat him, then, return being impossible, disaster will ensue.

With each government concession to Islamist preferences or sharia law, each CAIR-annointed Islamist appointee to the Bush administration or Congressional staff, each law that criminalizes criticism of Islamists passed and enforced in the US, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, our governments abandon more terrain that we may never re-occupy. They retreat and abandon, retreat and abandon, until our return to the dimly remembered normalcy of a country without sharia law may be impossible. We are deeply entangled.

The well-prepared Muslim Brotherhood and their front groups work hard at this entanglement and entrapment of European, US and other democracies in our own multicultural, politically correct laws. That entanglement is a Gordian knot, turning on itself with the inversion of ideas Fjordman calls the Rise of the Glossocracy - our familiar knotty dilemma:

If you speak against against Islamist terrorism, totalitarianism and sharia oppression, the Islamists will pressure your government to convict you of “Islamophobia,” racism or “hate” speech. And in Europe, Canada or the US, you may actually be convicted of this newly found thought crime.

But (here’s the twist in the knot) if an Islamist leader speaks against constitutional liberties, against equality and integration of ethnicities, religions and races, and then incites the genocide of Christians, jews, apostates, homosexuals, liberal Muslims and other infidels, then those same Islamists will pressure your government to protect that imam’s exercise of religious freedom.

And the imam will get his protection, even though his actions clearly violate long-standing incitement provisions in national laws.

The knot grows tighter and you become more entangled each time you protest your government’s refusal to exercise its minimal obligation to protect citizens from sharia infiltration, unlimited radical Muslim immigration, and domestic jihadists. With each protest, the sharia lawgivers and jihadists and your own government object to your objections, and the knot tightens. Publish your objections in Belgium, the Netherlands or Finland, or report suspicious behavior to an airline in Minneapolis, and you may get entangled right into jail. Every day, European and US governments endanger their citizens and constitutions as they open more and more social and political institutions to this entanglement. As Fjordman writes in On Bureaucracy, Liberty and the Rule of Law:

Why does the government dispense with the social contract and attack its own people? Well, for starters, because it can. The state has become so large and powerful that is has become an autonomous organism with a will of its own. The people are there to serve the state, not vice versa. And because state power penetrates every single corner of society, there are no places left to mount a defense if the state decides to attack you. Its representatives are no longer leaders of a specific people, but caretakers preoccupied only with advancing their own careers through oiling and upholding, and if possible expanding, the bureaucratic machinery.

With no social contract, the state creates a vacuum that Islamists are ready to fill; their copy of the dhimmitude social contract is always ready for signing. The Muslim Brotherhood’s future vision of the state - to be executed in 50 or 500 years, however long it takes - is the global caliphate, achieved through the four flanking actions of low-level state wars, non-state terrorist violence, mass immigration, and the slow substition of sharia law for constitutional laws and values. We’ve reached the middle stage of the Brotherhood’s plan, with most U.S. Democrats, the current U.S. State Department and the infinitely exanding EU bureaucracies competing to show their openness to the supremacy of sharia laws. The challenge is to see who will submit faster, the Tories’ David Cameron or the Democrat’s Nancy Pelosi or Bush’s Karen Hughes or Secretary of State Rice. France’s Sarkozy and to a lesser extent Germany’s Merkel provide some hope, but it is short-lived: in 2008, Slovenia will take over the EU’s presidency, and predictably, the Organization of Islamic Conference is already directing the agenda for Slovenia’s task force for the ‘European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008’ program.

This, then, is the entangled terrain of the war of ideas, abandoned by most governments, in which hardy groups of citizens are becoming the defenders of their constitutions. They are the usual motley crew that make political history, not just political analysis: small political parties, maverick legislators, civic associations, ordinary people becoming political leaders not from vocation but from desperation. Like other historical resistance movements starting out, these citizens’ groups are often fragmented, self-funded, fragile, isolated, inexperienced, in dire need of technical assistance and infrastructure support.

A valuable upcoming conference on “The Collapse Of Europe, The Rise Of Islam and the Consequences for the United States” includes an initial discussion of this Resistance. Speakers include Arnaud Dotézac of Switzerland, human rights lawyer and an editor of the European Parliament’s “Vision for Europe,” who has written (machine translation, my French is decades out of date):

“Le Coran contient des passages qui constituent des appels généraux à la violence. Ils ne visent pas des individus en particulier, mais des lecteurs du Coran peuvent penser qu’ils se conforment à ces injonctions en visant des individus. Je propose que ce risque soit pris en compte. Qu’on demande aux personnes qui font circuler ce texte de l’assortir d’une mise en garde précisant que la loi démocratique doit prévaloir sur les injonctions qui lui seraient contraires.”

“The Koran contains passages which constitute general calls to violence. They do not aim at individuals in particular, but readers of the Koran can think that they conform to these injunctions by aiming at individuals. I propose that this risk should be taken into account. That one should ask the people who circulate this text to match it with a warning specifying that the democratic law must prevail on the injunctions which would be contrary to it.”

Across several countries in this Resistance Spring of 2007, citizens are trying to re-occupy the abandoned terrain of their constitutional laws, their traditional values and their national cultures. Right now, they are outnumbered, outspent and out-organized by the petrodollar-funded Islamist organizations imposing sharia law wherever they get an inroad. With more support, they would have a chance to prove themselves.

But the fact that they are all emerging now makes this a season of hope.

Some examples follow, some from government agencies, others from political parties or associations, some well-known, others obscure. Most groups aren’t listed; over 100 groups (online, local, national) just in the US are now rising up against Islamist incursion or supporting liberal Muslims or apostates. Most recent events aren’t included, particularly the fight by many groups for free speech in countries where criticism of Islamists has been criminalized. What the groups below have in common is their mission: to define clear lines in defense of their constitutions against sharia law, and to define the territory to be re-occupied in this war of ideas:

United States, March 5, 2007: Delegates to the Secular Islam Summit in Florida release the St. Petersburg Declaration, signed by well-known Muslim apostates and secular Muslims, which states in part:

We call on the governments of the world to reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms;

oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;

protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

On March 28, 2007, the Mapping Sharia project is announced:

It is our task to conduct an extensive mapping of all the Islamic day schools, mosques, and other identifiable organizations in the US and to determine which ones teach or preach Islamic law, Shari’a. Further, the mapping will scale the Shari’a threat by identifying to which school of jurisprudence it belongs, its historical and contemporary call for Jihad, and whether the Jihad includes violent Jihad against non-believers.

This investigation will also map the leadership of these Muslim organizations and their other affiliations. We will also attempt to uncover any related businesses used or run by the organizations as fronts for money laundering and other illicit activities. Finally, we will examine and map any potential targets situated near these organizations, such as city, county, and federal government buildings, schools and universities, US military installations, major utility or infrastructure sites (i.e., nuclear installations, pipelines, water supply, etc.), and transportation hubs.

Germany, March 27, 2007: Well-known terrorism expert and author Udo Ulfkotte announces a new political party Pax Europa, founded in December 2006, specifically to limit radical Islam’s expansion. He also announces plans for a European-wide demonstration - Stop Islamisation of Europe - for September 11, 2007 in Brussels before the European Union parliament against the creeping islamizing of Europe, in cooperation with SIAD and other groups (see below).

Pax Europa’s platform calls for rolling back sharia law in Germany:

To reverse removal of Christian crosses from schools, kindergartens and hospitals;

To eliminate separate swimming times for Muslims and non-Muslims in public pools;

To eliminate separate kitchen implements for Muslims in European prisons;

To educate the public about Islamist jihad’s intent to spread Islam by any means, to encourage learning the Arabic language, and to educate the public that “islam” means “submission”, not “peace”;

To encourage European banks not to use sharia-compliant financial methods;

To eliminate Sharia boards for European banks and terror-related investments;

To educate the public on the role of Muslim leaders during WW II in the “final solution” for Jews;

To remove literature that incites hate against Christians and Jews from Muslim mosques and federations.

On May 9, 2007, Germany home affairs ministry Mr. Johans Orban announces that Germany is considering cooperation with Algeria to limit religious extremism in the Muslim community through mosques supervision by Algerian Imams.

Italy, April 23, 2007: Italy’s Interior Minister Giuliano Amato, publishes a seven-page “Values Charter” for religious minorities on April 23, 2007. It is non-binding with no force of law, drafted with the “help” of Mohamed Nour Dachan of the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII) and “supported” by the President of Italian Islamic Religious Community (COREIS), Yahya Pallavicini, and the head of the Moroccan Community of Italy, Souad Sbai. In the short term, the “Values Charter” is dismissed by some as an empty gesture to the Italian center-right, since it was issued immediately after passing legislation that (with real force of law) reduces restrictions on foreigners. But the Charter’s originator, Professor Carlo Cardia, has longer term ambitions for the Charter:that it will clear up “any uncertainties or grey areas” for immigrants whose rights and duties are to be the same as those of other citizens. The charter….

1. enshrines the right to religious freedom and equality between man and woman

2. advocates the monogamous family and wants to prevent women from experiencing humiliation and polygamy

3. condemns terrorism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia

4. demands no restrictions on clothing exist in Italy … [veils that] cover the face are not acceptable because they prevent the recognition of the person and are an obstacle for establishing relationships with others.

5. acts as a guide for relations between the ministry and Italy’s various religious communities…to help “consolidate Italian Islam,” “the second largest religion in Italy.”

Mild stuff, but in the war of ideas, a skirmish develops. Islamic groups that helped draft the “Values Charter” immediately complain. Dachan (UCOII) is upset with the final product, complaining that the veil is not humiliating, as stated in the Charter, and that the report should have mentioned Islam’s “contributions” to Europe. Isabella Bertolini, the centre-right Forza Italia party’s deputy whip in the House, clarifies those gray areas with even greater precision:

“The UCOII doesn’t have the courage to accept a document that bans polygamy and the prohibition on the headcovering… At this point Amato should make signing the document obligatory for members of the Islamic Council, or risk automatic exclusion”.

Like Switzerland’s Dotézac, Bertolini is seeking to use her laws - the Values Charter - to exclude sharia laws and practices and demanding enforcement. Yes, he’s focused on the Koran and she on sharia-enforced behavior, but their reactions to defend their constitutions are essentially the same.

United Kingdom, April 29, 2007: Gerard Batten, Member of the European Parliament for London, UK Independence Party, proposes the Charter of Muslim Understanding in the House of Lords with these findings:

…

We have to assume that Muslims who have made a conscious choice to come and live in Britain and assume British citizenship did so because they wanted to enjoy the benefits material, social and political of living in a democratic country. If that is the case then faced with the growth of fundamentalist extremist Islam in Britain, moderate and peaceful Muslims must make a conscious choice to reject extremism, and be seen to reject it.

And that is where the Proposed Charter seeks to help. We call on all moderate and peaceful Muslims to:

Sign the Affirmation that sets out basic principles of freedom and tolerance that no reasonable person could disagree with.

Enter into a dialogue regarding those Islamic teachings and texts that are incompatible with those principles.

Consider and reappraise the suitability of those texts that were framed in a bygone age and which, in a modern society, have no purpose and can only give encouragement to extremists.

The Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding is an effort to draw a line in the sand. On one side of that line will stand those who believe in tolerance and peaceful co-existence. On the other side of the line will stand those who believe in a fundamentalist, backward-looking, intolerant and violent Islam. By embracing its principles we ask moderate and peaceful Muslims to join their non-Muslim fellow citizens on one side of a line, and to leave the extremists and terrorists standing isolated on the other side.

Denmark, May 9, 2007: The Danish political party Stop the Islamisation of Denmark (Stop Islamiseringen af Denmark), having had two claims against the Koran rejected by the Ministry of Justice, files a complaint with local authorities and prepares to file a lawsuit, based on conflicts between the Koran and the Danish constitution. SIAD leader Anders Gravers states:

The Minster of Justice is breaking the Constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark Act. (the Danish constitution). We shall now take legal action.

We have now started a collection of money in the whole world in order to take legal action against passages of the Koran, i.e. passages which are contrary to the Danish constitution and the Danish Penal Code.

Sections 67, 69 and particularly section 78 of the Danish constitution are violated by Islamists in Denmark:

Readings of stanza from the Koran urging to murder of non believers and offending talk about other nations and religions will be examples of scriptural passages from the Koran which every imam (leader of the prayer) should be obliged to abjure before he obtains permission to keep a mosque. Then, perhaps, there would not be so much left of the Koran which the moslems then had to accept if they want to live in Denmark.

As to the political part of Islam the politicians ought to look closer at the Act of the Constitution they have promised to observe. Section 78, subsection 2 states as follows: Associations which act or try to reach their goal by violence, urge to violence or similar criminal influence on people of different opinions should be dissolved by law (Bliver at opløse). The Act of the Constitution is quite unambiguous. The expression “Bliver at opløse” is in the subjunctive (gram.) in Danish and means that it is an order. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to bring an action in such cases, and if the legislation is too weak in relation to the unambiguous wording of the Act of the Constitution then the Minister of Justice must endeavour to tighten up the rules. Obviously, we cannot accept associations within our country, in the name of tolerance, which urge unambiguously to kill Jews “where ever you see them” even though the Koran tell moslems to do so ever so much.

Conclusion

These groups and many like them around the world are the “Forces of Freedom” that need support, from donors and from individual volunteers. These resistance efforts offer another vision of the future - one that is neither terrorist anarchy nor the “peace and justice” of submission to the Muslim Brotherhood’s proxies and puppet governments in each of our countries. Sun Tzu’s advice is relevant to this war of ideas:

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

Or we can learn from Alexander the Great, who solved the entanglement of the mythical Gordian knot. With a single slash of his sword, he cut it half.

——————————————————————–

Addition:

May 12, 2007, Venice, Italy: European security officials from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland back a plan by EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini, to be completed by fall 2007, to “profile mosques on the continent and identify radical Islamic clerics who raise the threat of homegrown terrorism.

The project, to be finished by the fall, will focus on the roles of imams, their training, their ability to speak in the local language and their sources of funding…Italian Interior Minister Guiliano Amato said Europe had extensive experience with the “misuse of mosques, which instead of being places of worship are used for other ends.

“This is bringing about a situation that involves all of our countries and involves the possibility of attacks and developing of networks that use one country to prepare an attack in another,” Amato said.

The ability of the U.S. to cooperate with the EU efforts will be limited. Six months ago, the FBI was revealed to have only 33 employees with at least limited proficiency in Arabic. We already know the tragic story of Arabic speakers who offered their services to the FBI and were ignored. In the U.S., there are between 1200 and 2000 mosques (including Islamic community centers that house prayer rooms with a local imam, usually as a city chapter of the Islamic Society of North America). Any of us can do the math; any of us who speaks Arabic can make a great contribution here by contacting the Mapping Sharia team.