Evidence Keeps Mounting
by Raymond Ibrahim, Investigative Project on Terrorism
Egypt’s longtime banned Muslim Brotherhood—the parent organization of nearly every subsequent Islamist movement, including al-Qaeda—has just won the nation’s presidency, in the name of its candidate, Muhammad Morsi. That apathy reigns in the international community, when once such news would have been deemed devastating, is due to the successful efforts of Muslim apologists and subversive agents in the West who portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists”—irrespective that such a formulation is oxymoronic, since to be “Islamist,” to be a supporter of draconian Sharia, is by definition to be immoderate.
Obama administration officials naturally took it a step further, portraying the Brotherhood as “largely secular” and “pluralistic.”
Back in the real world, evidence that the Brotherhood is just another hostile Islamist group bent on achieving world domination through any means possible is overwhelming. Here are just three examples that recently surfaced, all missed by the Western media, and all exposing the Brotherhood as hostile to “infidels” (non-Muslims) in general, hostile to the Christians in their midst (the Copts) in particular, and on record calling on Muslims to lie and cheat during elections to empower Sharia:
Anti-Infidel: At a major conference supporting Muhammad Morsi—standing on a platform with a big picture of Morsi smiling behind him and with any number of leading Brotherhood figures, including Khairat el-Shater, sitting alongside—a sheikh went on a harangue, quoting Koran 9:12, a jihadi favorite, to portray all those Egyptians who do not vote for Morsi—the other half of Egypt, the secularists and Copts who voted for Shafiq—as “resisters of the Sharia of Allah,” and “infidel leaders” whom true Muslims must “fight” and subjugate.
The video of this sheikh was shown on the talk show of Egyptian commentator Hala Sarhan, who proceeded to exclaim “This is unbelievable! How is this talk related to the campaign of Morsi?!” A guest on her show correctly elaborated: “Note his [the sheikh’s] use of the word ‘fight’—’fight the infidel leaders’ [Koran 9:12]; this is open incitement to commit violence against anyone who disagrees with them…. How can such a radical sheikh speak such words, even as [Brotherhood leaders like] Khairat el-Shater just sit there?” Nor did the Brotherhood denounce or distance itself from this sheikh’s calls to jihad and takfir.
Anti-Christian: It is precisely because of these sporadic outbursts of anti-infidel rhetoric that it is not farfetched to believe that Morsi himself, as some maintain, earlier boasted that he would “achieve the Islamic conquest (fath) of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya.”
Speaking of the minority Christian Copts of Egypt, in an article titled “The Muslim Brotherhood Asks Why Christians Fear Them?!” secularist writer Khaled Montasser, examining the Brotherhood’s own official documents and fatwas, shows exactly why. According to Montasser, in issue #56 of the Brotherhood journal The Call (al-da’wa), published in December 1980, prominent Brotherhood figure Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah al-Khatib decreed several anti-Christian measures, including the destruction of churches and the prevention of burying unclean Christian “infidels” anywhere near Muslim graves. Once again, this view was never retracted by the Brotherhood. As Montasser concludes, “After such fatwas, Dr. Morsi and his Brotherhood colleagues can ask and wonder—”Why are the Copts afraid?!”
Lying, Stealing, and Cheating to Victory: In a recent article titled “The Islamist Group’s Hidden Intentions,” appearing in Watani, author Youssef Sidhom exposes a document “which carries the logos of both the Muslim Brotherhood and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party.” Written by Khairat el-Shater, the Deputy to the Supreme Guide, and addressed “to all the Brotherhood branches in the governorates,” the memo calls on Muslims to cheat, block votes, and “resort to any method that can change the vote” to ensure that Morsi wins, which, of course, he just did—amidst many accusations of electoral fraud. El-Shater concluded his memo by saying, “You must understand, brothers, that our interest lies wherever there is the Sharia of Allah, and this can only be by preserving the [MB] group and preserving Islam.”
In short, the Muslim Brotherhood has not changed; only Western opinion of it has. As it was since its founding in 1928, the group is committed to empowering and spreading Sharia law—a law that preaches hate for non-Muslim “infidels,” especially Islam’s historic nemesis, Christianity, and allows anything, from lying to cheating, to make Islam supreme. Now that the Brotherhood has finally achieved power, the world can prepare to see such aspects on a grand scale.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
@ babara:
“Generalize” about what?
All I did was take issue with the absurd proposition that the Muslim Brotherhood is ‘moderate.’
I’d say it was yourself who was generalizing. e.g.:
Seems to me that of all the approaches to Israel’s predicament that have been tried, war has been the least ineffective.
At the very least, it provides the occasion for a re-shuffling of the cards.
Sometimes that’s precisely what the doctor ordered.
@ Tony Jacobs:
tony, read my 7;55 post.
you cannot deal with ‘them a-rabs’ until such a time that those who would issue the order ‘to deal with them’ are a replaced with nationalistic unabashed-in-your-face leaders.
so far, all i hear from all the capitals is pure bs and hot air.
as far as my liberal, touchy-feely shstuff..i guess you’re right.
i must shed this nasty tendency…
🙂
the phoenix Said:
Gee Phoenix, I just can’t agree with your liberal, touchy-feely, bleeding heart crap. Man-up, grow some balls and tell us how we should really deal with them A-rabs.
@ babara:
We must not think of 1.4 bil muslims but rather one country at the time. (the proverbial ‘how do you eat an elephant’) .
When seen in that perspective, it DOES take a different dynamic, and there is a definite ‘yes, this can be done!’ about it rather than a defeatist what can we do? There are 1.4 bil of them…..
ANY problem can be solved if it is broken down to its smaller components.
Unfortunately, I agree with you that in all likelihood this will not be done, and the reason is because of US not because of THEM….
For as long as people like geert wilders, Robert spencer, Pamella geller , Elizabeth sabaditch Wolfe are vilified and worse, they must have a 24 hr body guard protection…while bastards like anjem choudary are allowed to walk free……yep this is what the road to doom looks like…
In Israel, likewise, (don’t get me started), to allow these subhuman hyenas to roam free in the temple mount while Jews are not allowed? To evict Jews from their homes in order to pave the way for a judenfrei area for the musloids? To declare the kach party as illegal?…..
Well yes. My ‘solution’ under such circumstances is not feasible…
I think that were feiglin to be the p.m. of Israel, were geert wilders and his party (and their counterparts in the rest of the west) be the leader ….our musloid ‘friends’ would be singing a TOTALLY different tune
rongrand Said:
@Rongrand: you are a master of understatement.
@Moishe: Yes.
Are we to kill every liberal or everyone that we don’t agree with? That seems to be the tenor of so many comments here.
@ the phoenix:
Sounds great, except that there are now millions of Muslims in the west. There just might be a logistics problem shipping them all out of the country.
Since we all agree that it the religion that is the problem, how are we going to contend with 1.4 bil practioners of this toxic faith world wide. ? May I respectfully suggest, your solution is no solution. It consists of practical impossibilities.
babara Said:
well babara, this IS the $64,000 question.
the answer is very simple and not that complicated if those facing the musloid world were part of a unified homogenous-thinking group.
alas, that is not the case…
four examples to make the point:
in the usa:
a. ann barnhardt
b. michael bloomberg
in israel:
c.the late rabbi kahane
d. shimon peres/e. barak / b. netanyahu
i submit to you that the answer is/was clear to all examples cited…
while personally i have no problem with the gist of moishe’s comment, it must be understood that from a practical point of view it is a bit more challenging to implement…
so it depends whom you ask for an answer to the ‘islamic terror problem’, as you call it. i see it much broader and simpler than that:
those musloids that are terrorizing planet earth (over 19,000 deadly terror attacks were commited by MUSLIMS sincce 9-11)are following the commands of their kkkoran and had-deaths to kill the infidel wherever ye shall find him…
the problem is not THEM as much as US.
when those who are sworn in to protect the population that has elected them, BETRAY those very same people that put them in power….they must be removed, and it should be a given, that they will not roll over and say “ok sorry. i’ll leave the place to a better suited person”…
as far as the herzlyan latte sipper, everything is cool and groovy. like peace man! like wow! they seem to be so spiritual… these arabs… so soft spoken…..like khalil gibran man, wow peace now! (spit!)
these moral degenerate must view people like moshe feiglin as some kind of a martian speaking a totally different language!
the only way, to my thinking, is to definie islam as the enemy and not to yield an inch to these bastards.
the slightest ‘request’ to address their ‘sensitivities’ should be met with an immediate deportation for the one who DARED make such a request AND all know family members.
destination?
as far as israel goes, they should be shipped across the suez canal to the newly denocratically elected muloid heaven. gezundheit, AND STAY THERE!!!
as far as the west goes, same enforcement, place them in saudi arabian airline, royal air maroc or any OTHER musloid airline…
@ dweller:
What is the answer to the Islamic terror problem? You generalize without giving tangible means to proceed. war has not helped and appeasement hasn’t been any more effective. where do we go from here?
@ Bill Narvey:
Narvey, the only reasonable and rational approach is to declare war on the Moslem world. Invade, bomb,occupy, pacify and remove that religious anomoly from the face of the world. Then and only then will we have peace, prosperity and a stable world.
@ Alexis:
Do you think you can trust that sellout-BIBI?
@ rongrand:
You cannot trust the Clintons and Obama.
Whether Obama really thinks the MB are moderate or extremist lunatics, he made it a priority to improve America’s relations with the Muslim world and the volatile Middle East in particular.
Obama’s objective is the same as that of Bush before him. The difference is in strategy, but in fact Obama’s outreach that has fairly been labeled appeasement, is not drastically different in terms of appeasement than Bush’s strategy was.
Obama has just carried the appeasement strategy much further than Bush, not only in reaching out to Muslims outside of America, but within America as well. Describing extremist Muslim American haters as moderate, calling the Nidal Hassan massacre at Fort Hood as being workplace violence and purging all security legislation and policy manuals of the words, Muslim Islam, Jihadist, terrorist etc., etc.
Obama is no more successful than Bush was in winning favor with the Muslim world and the Middle East. In fact his outreach overtures, calculated not to anger Jihadists more than they already are, which calling the MB extremist would certainly do that, has actually harmed America’s position within the Muslim world.
@ Alexis:
Alexis, I believe Hillary and Bill were kissing buddies of the scumbag Arafat.
Obama, Bill & Hillary, people you cannot trust.
Let’s not forget Hillary and her beloved aide Huma Abedine, fundraiser for MB fronts and daughter of one of the founding members of the Muslim Sisterhood, its women’s auxiliary.
I don’t think the word “evil” is used anymore in Washington. The MB seems to have broad support in the Middle East, in strategic countries. Couple that with the notion that money can cause anyone to betray his own mother, and you have the mentality of the current Administration. They have a sense of “logic”, but the factoids they use it on have no connection with reality. To pop the bubble of the Obamists, let me simply say that the MB cannot be bought: Obama can buy their leaders, but Muslims that cooperate with the US have an unpleasant way of getting lynched. BO does not have a viable long-term strategy: He plans to temporize until the Election, and play golf after that. Michelle plans to party. Evil? What’s that?
Without defending the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, it is obvious that the evil terrorists are the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists in Syria. When will the author condemn these evil terrorists?
“Moderate”?
M–O–D–E–R–A–T–E ? ? ? — It was the Muslim Brotherhood that assassinated Sadat.
He didn’t just quietly expire from, uh. . . . inadvertent lead poisoning.
He was murdered.
The whole freakin world watched it.
H-e-l-l-o.
The perpetrators were six operatives of a Muslim Brotherhood faction who had infiltrated the army.
Mubarak, seated on Sadat’s immediate right, was splashed with his blood — and was also himself wounded.
This is no mystery, fraught with speculation, like the JFK hit.
The facts are known, they are clear, they have never been disputed.
How in blazes does that get the MoBro a designation of “moderate”?
Why is nobody, but NOBODY — on any side of the debate — talking about that?
What is wrong with this picture?
The only person that I know of that believes them is our own President Obama and he says that is so. Say what?