The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham

Jawad-Figure-7by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
MERIA
December 11, 2013

PDF version available here

This article examines the rise of the al-Qa’ida-aligned group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) since its announcement in April 2013 until September 2013. It focuses in particular on its military operations and its relations with other rebel groups. The article concludes by examining what the future holds for ISIS on the whole.

INTRODUCTION: THE IDEOLOGY

The group under consideration in this paper–like al-Qa’ida central under Usama bin Ladin and subsequently Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Tehrik-e-Taliban of Waziristan, and others–is part of what one might term the “global jihad” movement. This movement is not a coherent whole organized by a strict central hierarchy, but rather one defined by a shared ideology. This ideology aims firstly to reestablish a system of governance known as the Caliphate–an Islamic form of government that first came into being after Muhammad’s death under Abu Bakr and saw its last manifestation in the Ottoman Empire–across the entire Muslim world. From there, the intention is to spread the Caliphate across the entire world.[1]

This worldview is one of many answers formulated to answer a question posed in the wider Muslim world: Namely, what has been the cause of decline of the Muslim world–and the Arab world in particular–in contrast to the apparent success of the West since the nineteenth century? The answer formulated by ideologues of the global jihad movement is that the cause of this decline is rooted in the Muslim world’s deviation from the path of Islam by not applying Islamic law to governance in its totality. This is to be contrasted with the “Islamic Golden Age” in Islam’s first five centuries or so–idealized in different ways by others not of this orientation–when the Muslim world was supposedly uncontaminated by foreign influences. Of course, given that era’s exploitation of the classical Greek heritage through the translation movement under the Abbasids- the global jihad movement’s portrayal of this era is blatantly unhistorical. Nonetheless, the perception is what matters.

In light of the ISIS’ ambitious goals, it is imperative to consider the group’s fortunes in Syria, which in turn will allow policymakers to assess what threat, if any, the group poses to the wider international order in the long-term.

Read more 

The Orient Express from Mecca to the Vatican Christians in the Cross Hairs

Top Muslim Brotherhood Imam Who Vowed to be Master of the World, Arrested Hiding in Women’s Clothes

download (34)By :

Safwat Hegazy, top Muslim Brotherhood Imam, who last year said, “Yes, we will be masters of the world, one of these days” has been forced to postpone his dreams of ruling the world through a Caliphate, when he was arrested by Egyptian authorities while hiding in women’s clothes.

 

He was going to be a king of the world, but he had to settle for being a queen of the desert.

On August 21, at a military and police check point a few miles from Egypt’s border with Libya, border patrols searched a private car and the people in it. Their stop-and-frisk included the removal of a woman’s niqab – Islamic face veil, headdress and robe – which covered a suspicious form. Hiding beneath it was Bedouin-garbed Safwat Hegazy, wearing a dark brown goatee disguise in place of his traditional full-cheeked, grey beard. The high-ranking longtime preacher of the Muslim Brotherhood was captured trying to slink across Egypt’s border.

How Islamophobic of them. They wouldn’t allow lifting a Muslim veil in Illinois or Michigan. Sadly Egypt is a rather intolerant place.

Known for jihad rhetoric repeatedly stressing his own martyrdom to defend Shariah law and Morsi’s constitution, Hegazy instigated many to their deaths through acts of jihad.

Once in captivity, Hegazy denied his association and role with the MB saying, “I don’t belong to the Muslim Brotherhood” — a direct contradiction to his machismo on August 8th from the Al Adawyia MB sit-in, “I will leave this place only as a dead body.” On the same date, during his interview on one of the Egyptian TV channels in a program called, Time of Ikwan, Hegazy boasted, “MB will lead the world and will be masters of the world.”

Apparently by dead body, he meant drag.

“If you read the literature of the Muslim Brotherhood, you will find in the literature of the Brotherhood, that which they can never abandon: The Islamic Caliphate and mastership of the world. Yes, we will be masters of the world, one of these days,” Hegazi said.

One of these days is suddenly looking a lot further away.

Hegazy, a cheerful sort, was barred from the UK, for his contribution to world peace through statements such as, “Dispatch those sons of apes and pigs to the Hellfire on the wings of Qassam rockets.”

Read more at Front Page

 

Study Shows Radical Islamist Dominance in Terror Plots

images (99)by IPT News:

With the guilty verdicts rendered today in the case of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, we are reminded of the threat radical Islamic terrorism poses to the American homeland. A report filed by the Washington Free Beacon on Aug. 16 focused on the threat of domestic terrorism. That report cited research conducted by the CI Centre, a Washington, D.C.-area national security think-tank founded by retired FBI official David G. Major.

The CI Centre identified 148 domestic terror plots since 2001. Of those, 114 were motivated by the radical Islamist “Salafist doctrine.” That’s the CI Centre’s terminology for those “motivated by Caliphate doctrine.” So among the nearly 150 domestic terrorist plots, 77 percent were motivated by radical Islam.

The CI Centre research identified 398 suspects involved in those 148 plots. Among them, the CI Centre culled out four that arguably could have been included in the “Salafist” group but they chose to consider separately. Those were the DC snipers, the Liberty City Seven (Miami), a “state sponsor” case (the suspect was Manssor Arbabsiar) and the LAX El-AL shooting. Including those four additional plots increases the 77 percent to nearly 80 percent of the domestic based terror plots involving some variant of radical Islam.

The CI Centre research essentially parallels the research conducted by IPT more than two years ago from available Department of Justice (DOJ) records concerning terrorism related prosecution cases. At the time, we found more than 80 percent of all convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism since 9/11 involved defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda.

These studies clearly show that, while not all terror plots against the U.S. and terrorists and their supporters arrested within the U.S. involve radical Islamists, the significant majority do. To ignore factual reality is foolhardy and risky.

Re-Interpreting the Koran

koran1-450x321By :

As I’ve written on several previous occasions, there exists a sect of reformist Muslims who believe that the Koran has been grievously misread by cavilers and doubters who are convinced that Islam is not a religion of peace, but a violent and imperialistic faith intent on world conquest. The passages in the Koran—and the environing literature as well—that give rise to the animosity of nit-pickers and quibblers, the enlightened Muslims claim, require to be re-interpreted so that their temperate and merciful essence can be made plain to all. Embarking on the process of re-interpretation can be a salutary and liberating task, one that we spurn at the peril of darkest ignorance and counter-productive rancor. Eventually the detractors of Islam may realize that they have failed to grasp the beauty, elegance and rhetoric of conciliation that animate the holy texts and be moved to make amends for their anti-Islamic vitriol and stubborn recidivism.

To consider only a few salient instances of controversial passages that have been consistently misapprehended.

Koran 2:191, speaking of infidels who do not accept the word of the Prophet, commands us to “kill them wherever you may find them.” Here we must be particularly alert, subtle and astute, for killing the unbelievers does not mean to slay them bodily, but to kill them with kindness, in other words, to shower the candy of life upon them, to reward them with prestigious appointments and lavish emoluments, to bow before them in the streets and welcome them into the homes of the devout, to address them with profound respect, to decorate them with titles and ply them with accolades—until, bedazzled by the nobility and magnanimity of Islam, they are ready to convert.

Similarly, in Koran 2:216, where we read that “fighting is prescribed”  for the faithful, we are to understand that the battle is enjoined to vanquish the evil impulse in Muslim and non-Muslim alike, until universal harmony and jubilation dominate the world. This is the true meaning and purpose of the Caliphate.

When Allah warns in Koran 3:56, with regard to those who reject the faith, “I will punish them with terrible agony,” the supreme Lord does not propose insupportable physical torment but, rather, the moral suffering that comes from the recognition of apostasy or denial, which can only strengthen the fibre of a mortified conscience.

Koran 5:33 informs us that “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.” Admittedly, this is hard verse to fathom; however, as is often the Prophet’s wont, he is not targeting body parts but engaging in graphic allegory to impress upon both believers and unbelievers the self-torture they will feel, smitten by their higher selves, should they curse the Almighty.

In the same way, Koran 8:12, which reads: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them,” is not meant to be taken literally. The true meaning is: browbeat them tactfully and lightly slap their wrists if they persist in their folly and continue to rebuff your acts of philanthropic munificence. This is the Islamic version of tough love.

Read more at Front Page

Imam on Temple Mount: Let America be destroyed!

download (12)The Clarion Project:

In a gathering on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem marking the first Friday of the Ramadan, an imam of the Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir organization incited a crowd of hundreds of Muslims calling for the destruction of America, France, Britain and Rome. The fiery speech was made on July 12, 2013. The original Arabic video was translated by the Clarion Project and can be seen below.

The imam, Ismat Al-Hammouri, said a number of times, with the crowd repeating after him:

“Allah is Greater! Let America be destroyed!”

“The Caliphate is the answer!”

“Listen, Obama, we are a nation that does not bow down, and the Caliphate will return!”

“Listen, Obama. and the Caliphate will return!”

 

 

Share this with others.

 

History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government

20110630_gmbdrmedium (1)by Clare M. Lopez:

Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”

– Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

The upheavals of 2011-2012 across the Middle East and North Africa swept aside secular rulers and the established political order with startling speed, and continue to focus world attention on the revolutionary forces driving these far-reaching events. Poverty, oppression, inequality, and lack of individual freedom are all hallmarks of the societal stagnation that has gripped the Islamic world for the better part of fourteen centuries, but the driving force of the so-called “Arab Spring” is a resurgent Islam, dominated by the forces of al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Energized as Islam may be at this time, however, without the active involvement of the United States to help arm[1], fund[2], support[3], and train[4] the region’s Islamic rebels, it is questionable whether they could have gotten this far, this fast.

This report describes how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist, whether knowingly or not, the mission of its grand jihad. Its hard-won position at the forefront of the 21stcentury Islamic Awakening is possible only because of decades of patient infiltration and political indoctrination (Da’wa) in the West, and especially the United States of America, even as the grassroots work of building an organizational structure advanced steadily in the land of its origin as well. It is important to recognize the sophistication of the Brotherhood’s international strategy and how the takedown of U.S. national security defenses from within was critical to the current Middle East-North Africa (MENA) campaign to re-establish the Caliphate and enforce Islamic Law (shariah).

Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood

To understand the Brotherhood and how it operates, especially inside Western societies such as America’s, a brief overview of where it came from and why it was established is in order. Following the early years of blindingly fast military conquests, Islam began to falter as European Christendom doggedly kept pushing back, eventually surpassing an increasingly corrupt empire that had run out of lands to conquer, people to enslave, and riches to plunder. Yoked by consensus of the scholars (ijma) to an ideology that rejected critical thought, innovation, and scientific inquiry in favor of blind obedience to revelation, the Islamic world remained largely untouched by the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and eventual Industrial and Technological revolutions that catapulted the West to global power status.[5] Eventual European colonization of the Arab and Muslim world and the stunningly successful re-establishment of the Jewish nation in the modern State of Israel brought humiliation to people raised on tales of historical supremacism over these, its traditional dhimmi victims.

Aside from Israel, which came later, this was the world into which Hassan al-Banna was born in the early 20thcentury. An Egyptian Cairene, al-Banna seethed with frustration at Islam’s diminished status in the world; in particular he resented the presence and power of the British colonial administration in Egypt. The abolishment of the last Caliphate by Kemal Ataturk in 1924 was perhaps the worst indignity, one that left al-Banna and his young Muslim university contemporaries apparently feeling unmoored. They joined together in 1928, determined (as we know from their statements and writing) to rectify things; “rectifying things,” for them, seems to have meant re-establishment of the Caliphate and global enforcement of Islamic Law (shariah). The organization they founded to return Egypt, the Middle East, and eventually the world to “proper” subservience to Islam as ordained by Allah would be the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Arabic).

Global Jihad

Since its inception in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood consistently has championed the cause of global jihad to “mobilize the entire Umma into one body to defend the right cause with all its strength…to jihad, to warfare…”[6]Until early 2011, its original bylaws could be found on the Brotherhood’s English language website, Ikhwanweb, established in 2005 by senior Brotherhood official Khairat al-Shater. Since then, they have been preserved by Steven Emerson at The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)[7]. Article (2) makes clear that the Brotherhood conceives of itself as “an international Muslim Body, which seeks to establish Allah’s law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion…establishing the Islamic State” and “…building a new basis of human civilization as is ensured by the overall teachings of Islam.”[8]

In case that sounds relatively benign, Article (3) E gets more to the point: “The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.”[9] This is exactly what the Brotherhood did in Egypt in the violent years before and after the 1949 death of al-Banna, until it was forcibly suppressed, only to rise again in 2011-2012 when circumstances permitted.

The story of how those circumstances shifted to permit (even compel) the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power not only in Egypt, but also Libya, Tunisia, and perhaps soon, Syria and elsewhere, spans 20th century world history. World War II and the Brotherhood’s close alliance with Adolf Hitler and his genocidal antisemitic Nazis provided the perfect opportunity for Islam’s latest expansion into Europe, where dozens of Brotherhood branches were established. Upon the defeat of Nazi Germany, its clandestine networks of Muslim operatives were picked up by the western Allies and naively turned to the same purpose as the Nazis had pursued: to counter the influence of atheist communist Soviets.[10] So it was that Sa’id Ramadan, the son-in-law of Hasan al-Banna, and a delegation of Muslim Brothers, found themselves in the Oval Office on 23 September 1953 meeting with President Dwight D. Eisenhower.[11]

There is much more at Gatestone Institute

Clare M. Lopez, a strategic policy and intelligence expert, is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Clarion Fund. She was formerly a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency.

 

We Might be Muslim Today if….

4851619_orig

Like Martel’s campaigns before them, the Crusades were defensive actions designed to stave off Muslim aggression. Oh, this isn’t what you learned in college, I know. It’s not what we hear from the media. It isn’t what’s portrayed by Hollywood. But it is the truth.

By Selwyn Duke:

The year is 632 A.D., and Muslim hordes have set their sights on the Mideast and North Africa — the old Christian world. And the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is called, will not be denied. Syria and Iraq fall in 636. Palestine is next in 638. And Byzantine Egypt and North Africa, not even Arab lands, are conquered by 642 and 709, respectively. Then, just two years later, the Muslims cross the Strait of Gibraltar and enter Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). The invasion of Europe has begun.

And the new continent seems no impediment to Islam. After vanquishing much of Visigothic Iberia by 718, the Muslims cross the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and move northward. Now it is 732, and they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris. The Western world — what’s left of Christendom — could very well be on its way to extinction.

Europe is currently easy prey, comprising disunited, often belligerent kingdoms and duchies recently decimated by plague. In contrast, the Islamic world is a burgeoning civilization; so much so, in fact, that it views the Europeans as barbarians. The Muslims also command enormous battle-hardened military forces and have enjoyed almost unparalleled breadth and rapidity of conquest, while Europe no longer has standing armies. It largely relies on peasants to do its fighting, men available only when crops aren’t beckoning. Yet the Christian Europeans do have one great asset: Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne.

Sensing the coming storm as early as 721, Charles realized he was going to need a professional, well-oiled fighting force if he was to tackle the Moorish wave washing across Christendom. So, using Catholic Church resources, he set out to train just such an army. And now, 11 years later, it will be put to the ultimate test.

With a horde of 80,000 men, the Muslims once again start moving north in 732 under the leadership of Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi. And after defeating Odo the Great and sacking his Duchy of Aquitaine, there is nothing standing between Al Ghafiqi and Paris – except Charles of Herstal and his Frankish and Burgundian army. The two leaders would lock horns in October, on a battlefield between the towns of Tours and Poitier.
Read more at  American Thinker

 

Obama and Morsi: Separated at Birth

1348878851014_cached-450x323By Daniel Greenfield

In Cairo, Morsi scribbles his decrees and in Washington DC, Obama scribbles his. There is an ocean between the two men, but there is a good deal that they have in common. Both are ideologues who piggybacked on public outrage over the national impact of international economic declines to climb to power and pursue their true agendas.

Without worries about the price of bread, the odds are good that Mubarak would be sitting in his old place and Morsi would be looking over the latest economic reports from the Brotherhood’s business networks and front groups. And without a sharp decline in American living standards, Mubarak would be receiving phone calls from President McCain urging him to democratize Egypt, while Obama would be rallying the troops at the latest SEIU event for taking back Congress.

Times of crisis are political hunting grounds for extremist groups whose ideologies would otherwise be unpalatable. Angry people are more willing to accept the previously unacceptable to shake up the system and punish those that they blame for their economic situation. They are in the long run, only punishing themselves, but the long run rarely wins elections. The short run however is the all-time ballot box winner.

But the problem with running on the old Bolshy platform of “Land, Bread and Peace” is that the people eventually expect you to deliver at least two of three. And ideologues are not interested in empowering people. They will hand out subsidized freebies to their supporters to win elections, but they won’t empower them economically and peace is never on the table with folks who believe utopia is just a hundred years of war away.

There is a point midway between the cheering for hope and change, and the complete consolidation of power in the hands of a tyrannical system when the tyrant is vulnerable. That window is the one that opens when the people begin realizing that there is no land, bread or peace on the horizon. Their eyes haven’t opened, but their patience has run out.

Morsi has tried to cut the duration of the window as narrowly as possibly by moving quickly to consolidate his power, but that brought on a second crisis and a wave of popular protests. Triggering those protests prematurely may have been his plan, but that plan may have also backfired. The only way to tell will be retroactively.

Obama’s ObamaCare power grab was generally held to be premature, but even though the majority continues to oppose it, the man behind the program survived an election thanks to a hurricane and plenty of voter fraud. Morsi may similarly be able to survive his own power grab. An Islamist is, if nothing else, absolutely immune from the sort of human emotions that animate normal leaders.

The advantage of being an ideologue is that you simply do not care what infidels think and anyone who is not a member of your mental club is an infidel. Transnationalists, whether of the leftist or Islamist flavor, are men who live without a country. Their country is an imaginary global utopia, the infinite Reich of dreams, the Caliphate of their conspiracies and the World Revolution that can never be.

Read more at Front Page

Remember the 9/11 Jihad Terror Attacks…and the ~20,000 Deadly Jihad Terror Attacks Since

Andrew Bostom:

The late southern Sudanese leader John Garang, in 1999, posed the following dual-part existential question for our era:

Is the call for jihad against a particular people a religious right of those calling for it, or is it a human rights violation against the people upon whom jihad is declared and waged?

As nearly  20,000 deadly jihad terror attacks since the cataclysmic acts of mass murderous jihad 11 years ago on this date should make plain, the answer to both parts of John Garang’s query is “Yes!”

Theodore Roosevelt offered this historical perspective in 1916 on the consequences for Western civilization of succeeding, or failing to repel jihad conquerors:

The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization . . . [including] those of Charles Martel in the 8th century [over Arab jihadists] and those of John Sobieski in the 17th century [over Ottoman Turkish jihad­ists]. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier [Martel] and the Polish king [Sobieski], the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any “social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence [is] . . . concerned. . . . There are such “social values” today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do—that is, beat back the Moslem invader. It is of course worthwhile for sociologists to discuss the effect of this European militarism on “social values” but only if they first clearly realize and formulate the fact that if European militarism had not been able to defend itself against and to overcome the militarism of Asia and Africa, there would have been no “social values” of any kind in our world today, and no sociologists to discuss them.

Nearly a century later, the preponderance of Muslims, from Morocco to Indonesia, share the goal of reestablishing an Islamic Caliphate. Polling data released April 24, 2007, in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4,384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006, and February 15, 2007—1,000 Moroccans, 1,000 Egyptians, 1,243 Pakistanis, and 1,141 Indonesians—reveal that 65.2 percent of those interviewed—almost two-thirds, hardly a “fringe minority”—desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate.”) The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5 percent of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict application of Sharia law in every Islamic country.”  Publication June 7, 2011, of the landmark “Sharia and Violence in American Mosques” study provides irrefragable evidence that 81 percent of this nationally representative sample of US mosques—consistent with mainstream Islamic doc­trine, practice, and sentiment since the founding of the Muslim creed—are incul­cating jihadism with the goal of implementing sharia here in America. These mosque data represent another manifestation of institutional American Islam’s jihadism expressed clandestinely twenty years ago in a Muslim Brotherhood state­ment dated May 22, 1991, written by an acolyte of Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” the document—uncovered during the Holy Land Foundation trial—is indeed self-explanatory.

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Whittaker Chambers’s transcendent 1952 autobiography Witness, which chronicles his apostasy from Communism, offers these searing insights that elucidate how American Muslims could rationalize such seditious behaviors—consistent with Islamic doctrine—and why this phenomenon remains largely incomprehensible to non-Muslim Americans, despite its existential threat to them.

What went on in the minds of those Americans . . . that made it possible to betray their country? Did none of them suffer a crisis of conscience? The question presupposes that whoever asks it has still failed to grasp that Communists mean exactly what they have been saying for a hundred years: they regard any government that is not Communist, including their own, merely as the political machine of a class whose power they have organized expressly to overthrow by all means, including violence. Therefore the problem of espionage never presents itself to them as problem of conscience, but a problem of operations. . . . The failure to understand that fact is part of the total failure of the West to grasp the nature of its enemy, what he wants, what he means to do and how he will go about doing it. It is part of the failure of the West to understand that it is at grips with an enemy having no moral viewpoint in common with itself, that two irreconcilable viewpoints and standards of judgment, two irreconcilable moralities, proceeding from two irreconcil­able readings of man’s fate and future are involved, and hence their conflict is irrepressible.

Does twenty-first-century America possess Whittaker Chambers’s moral compass and fortitude to combat the modern scourge of ancient Islamic totalitarianism?

Muslim Brotherhood: “Yes, We Will Be Masters Of The World”

by Raymond Ibrahim

During a televised interview earlier this week, Dr. Safwat Hegazy, a popular preacher in Egypt, known for his desire to unify the Arab world into a “United Arab States“—with Jerusalem for a capital—dropped the Western language and made clear what it is the Muslim Brotherhood ultimately seeks: a caliphate and world domination, which even the Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood maintains is the group’s mission.

In the interview, which Coptic Solidarity has translated with subtitles (click here), Hegazy simply declares: “If you read the literature of the Muslim Brotherhood, you will find in the literature of the Brotherhood, that which they can never abandon: The Islamic Caliphate and mastership of the world. Yes, we will be masters of the world, one of these days” (emphasis his).

Obama’s New Islamic World Order

Hillary Clinton and Mohammed Morsi

By Daniel Greenfield:

Three years after Obama appeared in Cairo to praise Islam, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Mohammed Morsi, the country’s new Islamist president, and urged the army to turn over power to him.

In three years Egypt had gone from a stabilizing influence and a regional ally to a blossoming Sunni Iran. If Egypt’s transformation had been an isolated incident, it would still have been a foreign policy disaster, but it was actually part of a chain of such transformations with Islamists coming to power in Tunisia, Islamist thugs sweeping across Mali to enforce Sharia law and the Muslim Brotherhood emerging as the dominant force in Syria’s rebel council and likely transitional government under the auspices of Turkey’s AKP Islamist rulers.

Al-Azhar University, which Obama described in his Cairo speech as “a beacon of Islamic learning,” is part of the mechanism by which Coptic Christian women and girls are kidnapped, raped and forced into Islam. It was also this “beacon of Islamic learning” that Dr. Muhammad, the head of its Department of Islamic Preaching and Culture, declared that Jews are the source of all evil.

This is the beacon of the new Islamic world order that Obama’s disastrous pandering enabled. But it began even earlier.

Obama’s first visit outside the hemisphere, after a few obligatory European summits, was to Turkey where he addressed a parliament dominated by Islamists. When Obama arrived in Istanbul, the AKP was working to eliminate Turkish secularism and replace it with its own brand of Islamism. Its attack on the Turkish Constitution was still controversial and many Turkish patriots continued to speak out against it.

Obama assured Turkey’s Islamist leadership that America was not a Christian or Jewish nation, even while hypocritically endorsing Islamist leaders working to transform Turkey into a strictly Muslim nation. His embrace of Prime Minister Erdogan, President Abdullah Gul and the AKP parliament provided the Islamists, who had ties to Al-Qaeda and had formed into a coalition a month before the attacks of September 11, with a show of support at a crucial time.

At the Grand National Assembly, Obama praised the AKP’s “reforms,” conveyed his “deep appreciation of the Islamic Faith” and vowed that “our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams.” Those common hopes and dreams would be fulfilled with the Arab Spring.

At a joint conference with Islamist thug Abdullah Gul, Obama went so far as to describe Turkey as a model for the partnership between the United States and the rest of the region. Within a year that model was bearing fruit as “democracy” was being used to advance the Islamist agenda and transform former allies in the region into that same model partnership between American leftists and Middle Eastern Islamists.

Next month, before visiting Cairo and meeting Mubarak, Obama visited Saudi Arabia to pay tribute to King Abdullah. The visit to the Saudi Kingdom before a high profile speech to the Muslim world sent a clear message, just as the visit to Turkey had. Before speaking to the Muslim world, Obama showed off his Islamist influences by paying court to two Islamist regimes.

As Obama bowed his head, the Saudi monarch hung the Order of Abdul Aziz al Saud around his neck. The golden chain of the order that was placed around Obama’s neck was decorated with the crossed swords representing the House of Saud and the House of Wahhab. On the order were the words, “Pioneer of Islamic Solidarity.”

Read more at Front Page

Video: Four Stages of Islamic Conquest

The goal of Islam is to make all of humanity submit to Sharia law

Four Stages of Islamic Conquest from LSA on Vimeo.

The Company They Keep

Center for Security Policy | Jul 17, 2012

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The truism that you know someone by the company they keep has rarely been more true than with respect to the Obama administration and its burgeoning ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists.  Just this weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the latest member of Team Obama to consort with sworn enemies of the United States when she sat down with the newly installed Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi.
Despite official, media and academic efforts to portray Morsi - and, for that matter, the Muslim Brotherhood more generally – as the kind of people with whom the United States can safely deal in the evolving Middle East and here, the determination of such Islamists to impose their supremacist Islamic doctrine of shariah worldwide could not be more palpable.  Their hostility to America, Israel, Western civilization and other infidels goes back to the founding of the organization in 1928 and is rooted in its guiding program – shariah – and it is absolute and unwavering.  Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves or deliberately deceiving others.

While it cannot be confirmed at this writing, presumably Mrs. Clinton was accompanied on her travels as usual – particularly in the Middle East – by her Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin.  That would be all the more probable given that Ms. Abedin has myriad family ties to the Brotherhood.  For example, her mother, Saleha Abedin, is a leader of the organization’s secretive women’s auxiliary, the Muslim Sisterhood, in which she serves along with Mohammed Morsi’s wife, Naglaa Ali Mahmoud.

The presence of an individual with such associations in the seniormost ranks of the State Department at a moment when the Obama administration is assiduously “engaging” with the Muslim Brotherhood has raised concerns on Capitol Hill.  To their credit, five legislators, led by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, have asked for a formal inquiry into the role Ms. Abedin and perhaps others have played in the adoption of problematic policies favorable to the Islamists.

For her troubles, Rep. Bachmann has recently been assailed by one of her colleagues – the self-styled “first Muslim congressman,” Keith Ellison.  The congresswoman responded Friday with a detailed – and devastating – 16-page, 59-footnote letter (http://bachmann.house.gov/uploadedfiles/letter_to_rep._ellison.pdf) to Mr. Ellison’s rash charge that there was no basis for concerns about Ms. Abedin.

The documentation provided also lays bare the established connections between several Muslim-American organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The upshot of Rep. Ellison’s foray is that he has inadvertently called attention to the bad company he keeps – namely, with various known Brotherhood front groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

Meanwhile, as Secretary Clinton headed off to Jerusalem, reportedly to assure Israeli leaders that Mr. Morsi means no harm to the Jewish State, a very different message is conveyed in a document (http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/3431.htm) currently making the rounds.  It is the transcript of an endorsement given at the kick-off rally of the Morsi campaign by one of his supporters, Egyptian cleric Safwat Higazi.  As the candidate looked on beaming, Higazi declared: “…The dream of the Islamic Caliphate is being realized, Allah willing, by Dr. Muhammad Mursi and his brothers, his supporters, and his political party – that of the United States of the Arabs….The capital of the Caliphate – the capital of the United States of the Arabs – will be Jerusalem, Allah willing.”

Rep. Bachmann and her colleagues also asked for investigations into the role being played in shaping U.S. policy by the president of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Magid.

As documented at http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/the-course/, that senior Brotherhood operative has been an advisor to President Obama, feted at the White House, State and Treasury Departments, literally embraced by the Justice Department and used as the vehicle for serial apologies by the Pentagon.  Counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole has dubbed Magid Team Obama’s “Diversity Czar.”

The fact that the Obama administration is keeping such company is made all the more appalling by the kind of company Czar Magid keeps.  For example, as Mr. Poole observed, at a recent ISNA “Diversity Forum” in Dearborn, Mohamed Magid presented CAIR-Michigan executive director Dawud Walid with a “diversity award.”

It speaks volumes about Walid’s actual “sensitivity” to others that he is on record justifying the destruction of Jews:

The Investigative Project on Terror’s Daniel Rogell reported last month that, in an anti-semitic rant, Walid asked rhetorically “Did Muhammad order the killing of Jews?”  He subsequently answered, “Muhammad didn’t order it.  Sa’ad ibn Mu’aadh [one of his followers] ordered that punishment. It was a correct one. (Emphasis added.)

Another award handed out by Mohamed Magid’s organization recognizes  “community service” and is named for one of ISNA’s founders, Mahboub Khan.  It happens that Mr. Khan is the father of someone else who has long been keeping company with Magid and his fellow Islamists – a controversial member of the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union (ACU) named Suhail Khan.  The younger Khan once declared at an ISNA conference, “What are our oppressors going to do with people like us?  We are prepared to give our lives for the cause of Islam….I have pledged my life’s work…to work for the umma [Muslim nation.]“

Not only can you gain insights into people by the company they keep.  When it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood and like-minded Islamists, it is downright dangerous to do otherwise.

Obama and “The Brothers”: An Invitation to Disaster

Egypt’s Islamist President-elect Mohamed Mursi delivers a speech while surrounded by his body guards in Cairo’s Tahrir Square

By Michael Widlanski

President Barack Obama, who invited the Muslim Brotherhood to his Cairo speech in 2009, has now invited Brotherhood leader and Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi for talks in the United States.

But as the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, we should all be worried, because the Brotherhood was the group that fathered Al-Qaeda and the Jihad groups that attacked New York in 1993 and again on 9-11.

But President Obama is not worried. He thinks the Brotherhood coming to power is an opportunity—perhaps to achieve even more of a “dialogue,” for “engagement,” with the Arab-Islamic world.

So far this dialogue of engagement has failed everywhere Obama has tried it—in Egypt, in Iran and in Turkey, but the president with the Islamic middle name thinks he can charm radical leaders to a path of moderation.

Back on the ground in the Middle East, there has been a 104-percent increase in terror attacks across the border into Israel from Gaza and Sinai in the last month. Cross-border infiltration and rocket attacks are a daily affair, usually without fatalities, but that will change when the terrorists “get lucky.”

When that happens, and it will, Israeli leaders will have to abandon the pin-point reprisal policy and escalate to a more thorough house cleaning of the border area. The Islamic terrorists in Sinai and Gaza, supported by 11 Bedouin tribes that make money from smuggling, are heavily armed.

There are more than half a dozen different terror groups—some associated with Al-Qaeda—and they will all want to flex their muscles.

Israeli military planners think it is only a matter of time before the Brotherhood, its sister organization, Hamas, that rules Gaza,  and the other terror groups destabilize Israel’s southern border, undermining the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and even causing a military conflict.

But in the rarefied air of the White House and Foggy Bottom, the Obama Administration is oblivious.

President Obama,  Secretary of State Clinton and anti-terror chief John Brennan do not seem too concerned. They helped bring the Brotherhood to the Egyptian presidency by undermining Egyptian leader Husni Mubarak, much the way Jimmy Carter undermined Iran’s Shah 34 years ago.

Obama and Co. invited participation by the Brotherhood in Egypt’s governance, bringing them to Obama’s Cairo speech of 2009. They should have known: He who invites extremists to the appetizer should not be surprised when they stay for dinner and dessert.

The “Brothers” are not interested in sharing power any more than the Iranian ayatollahs were. Yes, there are differences between Sunni Islamic radicals (Egypt) and Shiite Islamic radicals (Iran), but they also have much in common:

  • They hate Muslims who are not sufficiently religious and are too “Western” in their daily lives;
  • They hate America and Israel;
  • And they hate sharing power with anyone.

There will be no real democracy in a Brotherhood-led Egypt. You can bet on it.

The secular Egyptian army will hold out for a bit, but will finally succumb. That is what happened in Turkey, where Obama’s other favorite extremist Islamic leader, Recept Erdogan, swept the army aside. Turkey, once a reliable NATO ally, is now an unreliable force, and Egypt, once a reliable friend of the US, will also drift away.

Throughout this chain of events, it is hard not to see the resemblance  between President Obama’s actions in Egypt and those of President Jimmy Carter in Iran.

Carter and his aides hoped/prayed for moderation in Iran. But we got 30 years of death, terror, and a nuclear bomb program. Obama and Co. will get much  the same from the Brotherhood, whose Arabic name—Ikhwan—comes from the blood-curdling Wahhabi movement in Arabia that spawned the Brotherhood   in Egypt.

Obama and his aides like to drone on about how Obama personally liquidated Osama Bin-Laden, but in the long term, Obama’s loss of Egypt  will be much more important, and it could  overshadow even Carter’s loss of Iran.

Dr. Michael Widlanski, an expert on Arab politics and communications,  is the author of  Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat  just published March by Threshold/Simon and Schuster. He taught at the Hebrew University for nearly two decades and served as Strategic Affairs Advisor for Israel’s Ministry of Public Security.

Read more at Front Page