Egypt’s Military Plans for Hamas Confrontation

Egypt’s interim president says some groups have misunderstood Islam, and have permitted the killing of people

egypt tweetJihad Watch, By Robert Spencer:

By “people” he probably means Muslims, since the Qur’an says: “And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake” (4:92). Otherwise he is claiming that these misunderstanders of Islam misunderstand Qur’anic verses such as these:

2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”

4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”

8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!’”

8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”

9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”

9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”

9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”

9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”

And not just the Qur’an. They’re also misunderstanding the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

Egypt’s Draft Constitution 2014: Focus On De-Islamization, Expansion Of Military Power

The 2014 constitution sweeps away the MB (vetogate.com, December 3, 2013)

The 2014 constitution sweeps away the MB (vetogate.com, December 3, 2013)

By: L. Lavi:

Introduction

On January 14 and 15, 2014, for the second time in the three years since the January 2011 ouster of president Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s citizens will vote in a referendum on a new constitution. The previous constitution, drafted under the MB regime of ousted president Muhammad Mursi and approved by a 64% majority in a December 2012 referendum, was suspended by Defense Minister ‘Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi in July 2013.[1] A referendum approval of the new draft constitution will be considered a vote of confidence in Al-Sisi and his road map.

The new draft constitution was drawn up in two stages: On July 20, 2013, Interim President Adly Mansour appointed a committee comprising 10 judges and academics to contribute their proposals for a new constitution, based on the review of thousands of drafts submitted to them by various elements.[2] A month later, the committee submitted its recommendations to President Mansour, who then appointed a Committee of 50, headed by Mubarak-era foreign minister and former Arab League secretary-general ‘Amr Moussa, and tasked with completing the draft of the constitution.

While the 2012 constitution drafting committee had been dominated by Islamic representatives, this new committee comprises predominantly civilian elements, with only five representatives from Islamic streams: three Al-Azhar members (the same number as representatives of the Christian churches); one representative from the Salafi Al-Nour party, and former MB member Kamal Al-Hilbawi.[3]

This new draft constitution includes 247 articles, some 40 of which are completely new. About 100 articles taken from the 2012 constitution have been amended, and the remainder, also from the 2012 constitution, remain unchanged.[4]

The Egyptian authorities are claiming that the new constitution is merely an amended version of the 2012 constitution.[5] Its most striking difference from the 2012 document is the eradication of the Islamization direction, notably the so-called “identity clauses” regarding the status of the religion; the new draft constitution is more civil and rationalist in its tone, and it attempts to be more enlightened and tolerant, and to more firmly anchor human rights and freedoms. At the same time, the new draft grants greater privileges to the military establishment, including the authority to prosecute civilians in a military tribunal; this move has enraged many in the Egyptian street, even within the youth movements that supported Mursi’s ouster by the military.

The new draft constitution reflects the political balance of powers that has emerged following Mursi’s ouster:

–The exclusion of the MB from public life;

–The increase in the strength of forces and institutions not identified with political Islam – particularly the Supreme Constitutional Court;

–The weakening of Islamic elements and institutions – among them Al-Azhar and the Salafi Al-Nour party. Although these last two have had some influence in the drafting of the new constitution due to their backing of Al-Sisi in his removal of Mursi, but, in the current political climate of de-Islamization, their impact is much less than in the drafting of the 2012 constitution.

–The expansion of the military’s powers and the reduction in the powers of the president. At this time, it is the military establishment that is actually controlling the state, not the civilian interim president;

–The increased status of members of the former Mubarak regime, following the lifting of Article 232 of the 2012 constitution that calls for a “cooling-off period”, banning leaders of the Mubarak-era ruling National Democratic Party from participating in political activity or running for parliament or the presidency for a period of 10 years.

The MB rejects the draft constitution, as it has rejected every move by what it calls the “coup regime.” In its propaganda, the movement depicts it as a “constitution of blood” that betrays the January 25, 2011 revolution and sets up a military state, and also as a “church constitution” aimed at secularizing Egypt and eradicating its Islamic identity.[6]For this reason, MB supporters, led by the National Alliance for the Support of Legitimacy, the Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya organization, and the Al-Wasat party, have called for boycotting the referendum, pointing out that its results will in any case be faked.[7]

The Strong Egypt Party, headed by former presidential candidate ‘Abd Al-Mun’im Abu Al-Futouh, has called for voting against the constitution in the referendum,[8] while most of the civil parties and movements, including Tamarrud and the National Salvation Front, except for April 6 Youth Movement, as well as the Coptic Church, Al-Azhar, and the Salafi Al-Nour party, have called for voting in favor.[9]

Read more at MEMRI

Related articles

Will Arabs Have the Courage to Label Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group?

Masked Hamas gunmen in Gaza parade in honor of the organization's 25th anniversary, in 2012. (Image source: Facts for a Better Future)

Masked Hamas gunmen in Gaza parade in honor of the organization’s 25th anniversary, in 2012. (Image source: Facts for a Better Future)

by Khaled Abu Toameh:

Buoyed by the Egyptian move, Palestinian and Jordanian political analysts have urged their leaders to to seize the opportunity and crack down in Islamists in their countries.

The ball is now in the court of the Arab League, which is entitled to ask Arab Leaders to enforce the 1998 counter-terrorism treaty that would block funding and support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Jordan’s King Abdullah and PA President Mahmoud Abbas can use the treaty as an excuse to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The Egyptians authorities have officially labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, triggering a debate as to whether other Arab countries should follow suit.

The decision was taken in light of Muslim Brotherhood’s alleged responsibility for a series of terror attacks against Egyptian civilians and soldiers.

The question being asked today in the Arab world is whether other countries will take similar measures against Muslim Brotherhood groups and branches.

Buoyed by the Egyptian move, Palestinian and Jordanian political analysts and activists have urged their leaders to seize the opportunity and crack down on the Islamists in their countries.

But for now it seems that most Arabs, especially the Jordanians and Palestinians, are reluctant to follow the Egyptians — the reason why this week the Egyptians urged the members of the Arab League to enforce a counter-terrorism treaty that would block funding and support for Muslim Brotherhood.

Badr Abdelatty, spokesman for the Egyptian Foreign ministry, said Arab League members that signed the 1998 treaty should enforce it against the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a presence in most Arab countries.

The Muslim Brotherhood has a large presence in Jordan; while Hamas, a branch of the organization, controls the entire Gaza Strip and enjoys popular support in the West Bank.

“In the eyes of Muslim Brotherhood, we are infidels and an enemy,” said Jordanian analyst Fares al Habashneh. “They believe that an Islamic Caliphate is inevitable and seek to destroy our country and national identity.”

Habashneh said that the Jordanian authorities should seize the opportunity and take measures against Muslim Brotherhood in the kingdom. “Their ideological and political option have failed,” he added. “It is time to reconsider the presence of the Brotherhood ideology and end their incitement and hatred.”

But the Jordanian authorities, which have yet to comment on the Egyptian move to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, do not seem to have the courage to follow suit.

Jordan’s Minister for Political Development, Khaled Kalaldah, announced that the Muslim Brotherhood is a licensed organization in the kingdom. He denied that his government had plans to outlaw the group.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

US State Department Expresses Concern Over Egyptian Designation Of Muslim Brotherhood As Terrorist Group

url5By gmbwatch:

Egyptian media reported last week that the US State Department officials expressed concern over the Egyptian decision to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. According to a Daily News Egypt report:

December 24, 2013  The onus is on Egypt’s military leadership to ‘move the process forward and to create a climate that’s inclusive for all parties and groups in Egypt,’ said the United States Department of State on Tuesday.

Deputy spokesperson for the department Marie Harf reiterated her government’s concern regarding the Egyptian cabinet’s decision to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation on 25 December, along with the ongoing detentions and arrests ‘including for peaceful demonstrators, civil society, and political activists’.

Secretary of State John Kerry first voiced the concerns last week to his Egyptian counterpart Nabil Fahmy in a phone call one day after the cabinet had announced that it had classified the Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

Fahmy released a statement on Monday saying that the relationship between the two countries had made positive developments from a ‘troubled’ state but had not yet reached the desired status.

He added that Egypt’s dealing with China and Russia were not responses to turbulent US-Egypt relations, but rather part of an independent foreign policy framework that sought a ‘diversification of options’.

US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel called Egyptian defence minister Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi to offer assistance in the investigations of the recent waves of bombings and discuss the ‘balance between security and freedom’, as Hagel stressed the ‘role of political inclusiveness in the democratic process’.”

The GMBDW reported yesterday on the Egyptian designation.

The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) was founded in 1998 in what appears to have been a cooperative effort among the US Muslim Brotherhood, the US State Department and Georgetown University academic Dr. John Esposito who served during the 1990′s as a State Department “foreign affairs analyst” and who has at least a dozen past or present affiliations with global Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations. Past CSID board members included Jamal Barzinji and Taha Al-Alwani, both associated with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and both important leaders in the US Muslim Brotherhood who helped to establish many of the most important U.S. Brotherhood organizations. Antony Sullivan, the current CSID Vice-Chair, has many ties to U.S. Brotherhood groups including the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the United Association for Studies and Research (USAR), and the Circle of Tradition and Progress (COTP), a group whose other founding members included Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi. From its inception, CSID has argued that the U.S. government should support Islamist movements in foreign countries and has received financial support from the U.S. State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy and the United States Institute of Peace.

***************

CJR: This is how the Muslim Brotherhood influence operation is succeeding in “destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.”

The US will not designate the Muslim Brotherhood as an FTO. Not unless we elect a congress and president with the political will to do so.

Read the following links to see how they are working towards taking Hamas and Hezbollah off the designated terrorist organization list.

The Muslim Brotherhood: Terrorists or moderates?

Photo: Muslim Brotherhood: Terrorists or moderates/wikimedia

Photo: Muslim Brotherhood: Terrorists or moderates/wikimedia

By Bob Taylor:

CHARLOTTE, January 2, 2013 — The Muslim Brotherhood wants it both ways. The organization wants to be seen as moderate to give it political legitimacy while it continues to stir up trouble around the world.

Egyptians understand how the MB, and groups like them, play the game, but Western eyes often see things differently. Ryan Mauro of The Clarion Project explains why the group seemingly gets a pass from American media. It is an interesting recipe that is one part ignorance, one part ambivalence, and another part tolerance. When stirred together and mixed into the melting pot of the Middle East, the result is a dangerous combination.

The apathy is manifest immediately; Mauro’s story does not raise eyebrows the way the New York Times did with its recent investigative report on Benghazi. Mauro’s insight is the sort of solid background material that should be read, saved and referred to as a resource when it inevitably does become major news again.

Keeping up with the constantly shifting turmoil in the Middle East is like playing political Twister. The contortions of alliances and enemies alternate so rapidly that it is almost impossible to follow the action.

Attaching the terrorism label to the Muslim Brotherhood matters because of their efforts to infiltrate other organizations with their “moderate” image. The “wolf in sheep’s clothing” strategy has worked well for the Brotherhood — so much so that our own government has placed significant trust in having advisors inside the White House who are either members or have ties to it.

The idea of “keeping your friends close and your enemies closer” can be a useful tactic, but in the volatile world of Islamic jihad there are probably better alternatives.

Mauro points out that by refusing to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist entity, “The result is a realignment in alliances that pushes the Arab world into the arms of Russia.”

Barack Obama likes to talk about “teachable moments,” which is why Mauro’s article is so relevant. “The State Department says there are three criteria a group must meet to be designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization,” he writes: The group must be foreign; it must threaten U.S. nationals or national security; and it must “engage in terrorist activity or retain the capability and intention to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.”

The Muslim Brotherhood was created in Cairo in the late 1920s. Today it operates out of Tunisia, Turkey and Qatar, and none of those are represented by stars on the American flag.

With regards to the second criterion, Mauro notes that the Brotherhood’s “regional ambitions for a Caliphate undoubtedly threaten U.S. security. As for nationals, the Brotherhood has justified attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also steadfastly supports the terrorism of Hamas and other groups against U.S. allies.”

The Palestinian “wing” of the Muslim Brotherhood, as it says in its charter, is Hamas, which carries the designation of a Foreign Terrorist Organization. This means the Brotherhood fulfills the third condition as well.

If the Muslim Brotherhood meets the State Department’s requirements to be categorized as a terrorist organization, why isn’t it?

Mauro provides three reasons: influence, ignorance and fear.

Read more at Washington Times

Related articles

 

Video: Christopher Holton on Civilization Jihad, the Global Islamic Insurgency and Shariah Compliant Finance

moa1Terror Trends Bulletin, Oct. 17, 2012, by Christopher Holton:

This information makes up the introductory portion of the briefing that I have been delivering around the country for the past 3 years. It is important given the mounting evidence of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the West, and the US in particular.

On 22 May 2007, the Pew Research Center, certainly not a “conservative” organization, published a report on a survey that they conducted of Muslims in America. The name of that report was “Muslims in America: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream.”

Pew rolled it out as a celebration of Muslims in America. The media jumped on the bandwagon and the report was received with delight.

But there are aspects of the report which deserve more scrutiny and which Pew and the media essentially ignored in their spin during the release.

First a few background highlights:

• Pew reported that there were 2.35 million Muslims in America, including 1.4 million over the age of 18 (the target group of the survey).

This is important because the Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as CAIR and ISNA, frequently claim that there are 5-6 million Muslims in America. President Obama parroted the bogus 5-6 million figure from the Muslim Brotherhood in his 2009 Cairo speech.

• 30% of the 1.4 million (420,000) were said to be between 18 and 29.

This is important because this is the demographic most likely to be involved in jihadist activity.

Most importantly, there were two particularly relevant questions that were buried deep in the Pew survey that Pew chose not to address or highlight in its release and rollout of the report:

Relevant Question Number 1: Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?

A: Often/Sometimes: 8%

A: Rarely: 5%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 9%

A: Never: 78%

 In other words, AT LEAST 13% of American Muslims believed that suicide bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

 182,000 Muslims in America over the age of 18 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Here is another important point: This same question was asked of Muslims under the age of 30 (the age group most associated with jihadist activity):

A: Often/Sometimes: 15%

A: Rarely: 11%

A: Don’t know/refuse to answer: 5%?

A: Never: 69%

 26% or 109,200 Muslims in America between 18 and 29 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Relevant Question Number 2: What is your view of Al Qaeda?

A: Favorable: 5%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 10%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 27%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

Same questions to Muslims under 30:

A: Favorable: 7%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 16%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 19%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

 70,000 Muslims in America admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

 29,400 Muslims in America between the ages of 18 and 29 admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

It is particularly noteworthy that younger Muslims in America appear to be more predisposed to violent Jihad than older Muslims based upon the answers to these two questions.

Note that this survey was conducted of Muslims in America, not Muslims in Benghazi, Ramadi, Fallujah, Gaza, Cairo, Sana’a, Tehran, Kandahar, or Islamabad. The tens of thousands of Muslims that harbor these views all live in America. These numbers are staggering and frightening.

Civilizational Jihad and Global Islamic Insurgency with Christopher Holton, Published on Dec 26, 2013 by Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors:

 

“… new reality makes identifying and understanding the Islamic doctrinal basis of our Jihadist enemies all the more important, yet with each passing attack, we seem to be getting further and further away from doing so.”

Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy discussed what America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, an even more toxic danger — a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

Civilizational Jihad is succeeding through government, finance, military institutions…and though our schools.

Christopher Holton is Vice-President of Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. He directs the Center’s Divest Terror Initiative and Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program. He has been involved in legislation in twenty states to divest taxpayer supported pension systems from foreign companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and the Syrian Arab Republic. Since 2008, Chris has been the editor-in-chief of the Shariah Finance Watch Blog. In 2005, he was a co-author of War Footing, published by the US Naval Institute Press. Holton’s work has also been published by National Review, Human Events, The American Thinker, Family Security Matters, Big Peace, World Tribune, World Net Daily, NewsMax, and thehayride.com. Before joining the Center, Chris was President of Blanchard and Company, a two hundred million dollar per year investment firm, and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit. Christopher blogs at TerrorTrendsBulletin.com.

 

And this is an excellent presentation on Shariah Compliant Finance with a long Q&A beginning about 50 min. in:

 

Here is a transcript of a similar presentation given in 2012.

 

Egypt Declares Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group

Muslim-Brotherhood-Egypt-450x344

The Muslim Brotherhood fulfills all three requirements to be labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

There are three reasons why this has not happened: The Brotherhood’s lobby, ignorance and fear.

By Ryan Mauro:

The Egyptian government formally labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group on Christmas, banning all of its activities including protests. The Obama Administration, advised by Brotherhood-friendly groups in the U.S., is unlikely to follow in Egypt’s footsteps in calling a spade a spade.

The announcement came after the government blamed the Brotherhood for the suicide bombing of a police station in Mansoura. No proof was offered of Brotherhood involvement. A pro-Al-Qaeda group named Ansar Jerusalem, based in the Sinai Peninsula, took credit.

That didn’t stop local protestors from immediately rallying against the Brotherhood, s effigies of the group’s leaders and attacking property owned by a Brotherhood member. The Egyptian public as a whole remains hostile to the Brotherhood and loyal to the military, with about half the population wanting the group outlawed. Another poll taken in August showed that almost 70% want it banned from politics.

The Brotherhood may or may not be involved in that specific bombing in Mansoura, but that doesn’t mean it is peaceful. It has threatened to form a rebel armed force. After the Egyptian military’s crackdown on the Brotherhood began, Egyptians outraged by the response of the U.S. government and media posted eye-opening videos showing Brotherhood members threatening violence, attacking Egyptian security forces and churches, and putting children at risk for the sake of propaganda.

In addition, Brotherhood preachers continue to instigate violence in Egypt and abroad. The organization knows what it’s doing. Why officially engage in violence when individual members and Salafist allies will do so on their own accord, leaving room for deniability?

The labeling of the group as terrorists comes as the government prosecutes former President Morsi and many other Brotherhood operatives. Morsi is accused of involvement in a “terrorist plan” begun in 2005 to send Brotherhood fighters to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip for training by Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The Obama Administration has decided to swim against the regional anti-Brotherhood wave, cutting aid to Egypt’s government and siding with the Brotherhood. The result is a realignment in alliances that pushes the Arab world into the arms of Russia.

It is extremely unlikely that the U.S. State Department will similarly designate the Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, even though it meets the qualifications. It is more likely that the administration will condemn Egypt’s latest action.

Read more at Front Page

Egypt’s New Constitution: As Bad as its Old One?

by Michael Armanious:

Amr Moussa, chairman of the committee tasked with amending the Islamist constitution, talked about how the new constitution guarantees that Egypt will have a “civilian government” and promote the creation of a “democratic and modern country.”

But he did not promise that it would be a secular one. Moussa asserts that the new constitution bans the creation of parties based on religion, but it gives Egypt’s theocrats-in-waiting a way to get around the ban on by allowing parties to be established on “Islamic reference”; and Article Two remains.

“In Egypt, a civil state means a modern nationalist state that is compatible with Islamist provisions.” — Ali Gomaa, Egypt’s former Grand Mufti.

Egypt’s interim president Adly Mansour has set January 14 and 15, 2014, as the dates for a referendum on the country’s amended constitution.

Amr Moussa – the chairman of the (fifty-member) Committee of Fifty tasked with amending the 2012 Islamist constitution – appeared in multiple televised interviews to tell about the importance of the new amended constitution for the future of Egypt. He talked about how the new constitution guarantees that Egypt will have a “civilian government” and will promote the creation of a “democratic and modern country.” He stressed that Egypt will have no military or theocratic government. He also listed several articles that will guarantee freedom for Egyptians, including freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

A closer look at the constitution itself reveals that it is not the freedom-promoting document Moussa describes it as being.

 

Amr Moussa, pictured here at a 2013 World Economic Forum conference, says that Egypt’s proposed constitution will not allow for a military or theocratic government. (Image source: World Economic Forum / Benedikt von Loebell)

The amended constitution still includes Article Two of the previous constitution, which states that Islam is Egypt’s religion and that the “principles” of the Islamic Sharia law are the country’s main source of legislation. This clearly puts Egypt’s religious minorities, most notably the Coptic Christians, in a position of extreme vulnerability. When this was pointed out, Moussa stated that there was nothing to be done because the article had been approved unanimously by the Committee of Fifty, which included Coptic leaders. What Moussa failed to report, however, was that a Copt who served on the Committee of Fifty openly admitted on national television that he had caved into the demands of Islamists who want to turn Egypt into an Islamic theocracy.

Retaining Article Two is not the only problem with the constitution. It also places Egypt’s military beyond civilian oversight, rendering the phrase “civilian government” meaningless. This condition is a huge problem: Egypt’s armed forces have amassed an enormous and independent economic empire which includes gas stations, banquet halls, construction operations, factories, and vast tracts of land. Consequently, Egyptian generals are the feudal lords of modern Egypt; their underlings are their squires and scribes, and those outside the military are turned into defenseless peasants.

This arrangement is solidified by another part of the constitution that allows Egyptian civilians to be tried in a military court. In an effort to allay fear over this, Moussa stressed that civilians can only be tried in a military court in specific kinds of cases – when someone attacks a military buildings or equipment, for example.

But Major General Medhat Radwan Gazi, chief of military justice, contradicted Mr. Moussa. Gazi confirmed that disputes between civilians and the operators of military owned-businesses could be settled by a military court to protect the officers or soldiers who work and manage these businesses.

Gazi also said that there is no difference between an officer defending the country in a tank or pumping gas or managing a gas station. They are all officers of the armed forces, so any dispute with the public will be tried in military court. In sum, the proposed constitution entrenches a modern-day system of feudalism in the land of the Nile.

This plan is a disaster. Egypt has been under military rule for over 61 years, and emergency laws have been used for over 32 years of its recent history. Thousands of civilians have been tried and convicted in military courts for all kinds of charges. Gazi confirmed that the armed forces will continue governing Egypt for the foreseeable future.

One would think that in exchange for cementing the status of Egypt’s generals as modern-day Pharaohs, the new constitution would at least protect Egyptian citizens from an onslaught of theocratic extremism. It does not.

Moussa asserts that the new constitution bans the establishment of political parties based on religion, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, but it gives Egypt’s theocrats-in-waiting a way to get around this ban by allowing parties to be established on “Islamic reference.”

What is the difference? So far, 11 parties have already followed this path, including the Hizb El-Benaa Wa El-Tanmia, and the Al Nour Party.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

The Muslim Brotherhood’s winter offensive

3831235057Center for Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

Sixty-nine years ago this month, Nazi Germany mounted its last, horrific offensive in the dead of winter in what came to be known as the Battle of the Bulge.  Perhaps taking a page from the playbook of their fellow totalitarians, the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have its own audacious winter offensive underway – only this one is being waged inside America, a country the Brothers have declared they seek “to destroy from within.”

At the moment, the object of this exercise appears to be to prevail on the U.S. government to do what it did once before: help install a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt.  The difference, of course, is that the last time was in the heyday of the so-called “Arab Spring,” a moment when the ambitions of Egyptian Islamists and those of their counterparts in Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere were temporarily obscured by disinformation and wishful thinking.

In short order, however, the determination of the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk to impose the supremacist and brutally repressive doctrine they call shariah became evident in Cairo and the rest of the Middle East.  Whether they gained power via violent revolution or through the ballot box, the goal was the same: compel moderate Muslims, secularists, Christians and everybody else to submit to orthodox Islamic misrule. Resistance was met with violence, imprisonment and the destruction of churches.

Fortunately, as many as thirty million Egyptians took to the streets of their cities last summer to denounce the Brotherhood and demand the removal from power of its president, Mohamed Morsi.  He was overthrown and arrested in July by the military-led opposition, his organization banned and its other leaders incarcerated.  Most sentient Americans recognized this as a very positive development.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s operatives, front organizations and allies in this country have nonetheless demanded Morsi’s restoration. They present themselves as champions of democracy, hoping no one will notice the practical effect of the Brothers’ policies when in power: a state in which elections amount to nothing more than one man, one vote, one time.

The Brotherhood’s advocates enjoy considerable access to and influence with the Obama administration.  For example, the President and his subordinates take counsel from Homeland Security Department advisors like Mohamed Magid, the president of this country’s largest Muslim Brotherhood front, the Islamic Society of North America, and Mohamed Elibiary, an Islamist community organizer based in Plano, Texas. At the urging of their ilk, Mr. Obama cut off military sales to the Egyptian government a few months ago.  In addition to needlessly alienating Cairo when it is rolling up our mutual enemies, he thus created an opportunity for Vladimir Putin to pick up the slack and, in the process, further reestablish Russia in the Middle East.

The Muslim Brotherhood in this country (the subject of a free ten-part online course at www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) is evidently determined to do even more for their fellow jihadists in Egypt.  Hence, they have created new fronts to promote Egyptian “democracy” and held lobbying and fundraising events in several U.S. cities featuring top Brotherhood personalities.

As the indispensable Investigative Project on Terrorism first reported, one of those is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna.  Ramadan was allowed into the United States in January 2010 at the direction of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose longtime aide, Huma Abedin, also has extensive personal and family ties to the Brotherhood.

Even more outrageous is the presence at several of these events – including one in the House Cannon Office Building on December 5th – of Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian would seem an unlikely choice to sell Congress on so dubious a proposition as restoring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt.  After all, he not only engaged in what the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” in the United States. That’s the stealthy subversion Islamists employ until they are able to use violence to foist shariah worldwide.

Sami al-Arian was also convicted in 2006 of aiding Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist group he led for many years.  PIJ has been responsible for murders of innocents in the past and applauded a bus bombing in Israel just last Sunday.  Why on earth would Judge Leonie Brinkema allow Al-Arian, who is awaiting disposition of contempt of court charges and faces possible deportation, to collaborate and agitate with his fellow Muslim Brothers, albeit with a location-monitoring bracelet?

It is obscene that anyone in Congress would host such a jihadist. Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN), a Muslim legislator who sponsored the event at which Al-Arian appeared, claims not to have known that he would be there.  True or not, he and President Obama have certainly failed to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood for the enemy it is.

That failure makes all the more dangerous the Muslim Brotherhood’s present offensive.  As we mark the anniversary of the bloody and avoidable Battle of the Bulge, we would do well to reflect upon an event held last month at the Brotherhood beachhead at Georgetown University, the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  Among those invited to promote a “return to democracy” in Egypt was a featured guest speaker named Rami Jan, who happens to be a member of the Egyptian Nazi party.

Egypt Buries the Brotherhood

Protest against President Mohamed Morsi in Cairo, Egyptby :

It’s not unusual for the United States and a Muslim country to be on the opposite sides of the War on Terror. It is unusual for a Muslim country to take a stand against terrorism while the United States backs the right of a terrorist group to burn churches, torture opposition members and maintain control of a country with its own nuclear program.

But that’s the strange situation in what Egypt’s public prosecutor has declared “the biggest case of conspiracy in the country’s history.”

The media assumes that the charges accusing Muslim Brotherhood leaders of conspiring with Hamas and Hezbollah, passing state secrets to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and plotting to help foreign terrorists kill Egyptian soldiers is a show being put on for Western audiences. They couldn’t be more wrong.

This isn’t about winning international PR points. It’s about destroying the credibility of the Brotherhood in the eyes of Egyptians and burying it along with what’s left of the Arab Spring in the waters of the Nile.

Obama assumed that cuts to military aid would force Egypt to restore the Muslim Brotherhood to power. He was wrong and the latest round of criminal charges show just how wrong he was.

The charges that the Muslim Brotherhood conspired with Hamas and Hezbollah to unleash a wave of terror against Egypt go to the heart of this struggle between the Egyptian nationalism of the military and the Islamic transnationalism of the Muslim Brotherhood. They paint the Muslim Brotherhood as not merely corrupt or abusive, the way that many tyrannies are, but as a foreign subversive element.

These aren’t merely criminal charges. They are accusations of treason.

There are two narratives of the Arab Spring. In one of them, the people rose up against the tyrants.  In the other an international conspiracy of Western and Muslim countries collaborated with the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Arab countries.

To destroy the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the state has to do more than accuse Morsi of abuses of power; it has to show that he and his organization were illegitimate because they were Un-Egyptian.

That will prove that the differences between Mubarak and Morsi aren’t incidental. Mubarak may have been thuggish and corrupt, but he was an Egyptian patriot. Morsi will be charged with being an Iranian traitor who conspired to take away the Sinai and turn it over to the terrorist proxies of a Shiite state.

Read more at Front Page

 

Esman: Women are “Biggest Losers” in Arab Spring

Muslim Brotherhood: A history of terror

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann

Daily News Egypt, By Michele Bachmann:

If the decision of the interim government of Egypt is to consider the organisation of the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, then the United States should follow.

From the time of Hassan al-Banna and the “secret apparatus” staging terror attacks across Egypt and the assassinations of Prime Minister Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha and judge Ahmed El-Khazindar in 1948, to the ongoing attacks on Coptic Christians and churches and the terror campaign targeting the military in the Sinai and elsewhere, the Muslim Brotherhood has always kept terrorism as part of its arsenal and living up to their motto, “Jihad is our way.”

We’ve seen the Brotherhood engage in a two-faced policy of publicly condemning terrorism to media outlets in the West, and then supporting terrorism when they think no one is looking. When they get caught, the predictable response is to claim that they were misquoted or taken out of context. This is why Alain Chouet, the former head of the French Security Intelligence Service, observed that “like every fascist movement on the trail to power, the Brotherhood has achieved perfect fluency in double-speak.”

After the 25 January Revolution, the Obama administration and the American media fell for this double-speak, embracing the so-called “moderate Muslim Brotherhood.”

But as the people of Egypt quickly discovered, they were anything but moderate. Under former President Morsi’s brief tenure, the Muslim Brotherhood’s program of extremism was given a green light. Following his election, one of Morsi’s first agenda items was to demand the release of convicted terrorist leader Shiek Omar Abdel Rahman from American prison. The “Blind Sheik” was convicted in his role in federal court for his leadership role in authorising the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned follow-up “Day of Terror” attack. Morsi also released scores of convicted terrorists from Egyptian jails.

Under the Morsi regime attacks against women and religious minorities, including Coptic Christians and Shi’ites, increased dramatically with no response from the government. In April, when mobs and police attacked a funeral at St. Mark’s Cathedral, killing at least one mourner, one of Morsi’s top aides took to Facebook to blame the Coptic Christians for the attacks. The Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party have continued to incite violence against the Coptic community since Morsi’s removal

When Morsi issued his 22 November, 2012 declaration claiming that his power was beyond the review of the courts and that all his decrees could not be appealed – effectively declaring himself dictator – the Obama administration issued no condemnations. As protestors were being tortured by Muslim Brotherhood cadres in front of the presidential palace, the United States was continuing with plans to send planes, tanks, tear gas and financial aid to the Morsi regime over the protests from myself and many of my colleagues in both chambers of the United States Congress.

As Egyptians were being jailed and tried for “defamation” and “insulting the president” and after Morsi appointed a former Jamaa Islamiya terrorist leader as governor of the Luxor Governorate, where his terror group had attacked and killed 62 tourists in 1997, Obama’s Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson gave a speech in Cairo just days before the 30 June Tamarod protests continuing to back Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In October 2003, the former counter-terrorism “czar” for both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Richard Clarke, testified before the US Senate that virtually every Islamic terrorist organisation in the world had in common membership and inspiration from the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Not only has virtually every leader of Al-Qaeda passed through the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood, but several of the 9/11 hijackers, including ringleader Mohamed Atta, were known to have been radicalised through the Brotherhood.

In February 2011, just days after Mubarak announced he was stepping down, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller told the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that “elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.”

The move in Egypt to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation is one born out of urgent necessity and the group’s long history of terror. If this decision is made by the Egyptian government then the United States should follow. The designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation is warranted and long overdue.

Michele Bachmann is an American Republican member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Minnesota’s 6th congressional district, and a former U.S. presidential candidate.

More Slaughter in Muslim Lands; Media, Governments Silent

Muslim Persecution of Christians: October, 2013

By Raymond Ibrahim:

811 (1)Two of the most tragic Islamic attacks on Christians, killing several women and children, took place in the month of October, one in Syria another in Egypt.

On October 21 in Syria, the U.S.-supported Islamic rebels invaded and occupied the ancient Christian settlement of Sadad for over a week, till ousted by the military.  During that week, “the largest massacre of Christians in Syria,” in the words of Orthodox Archbishop Alnemeh, took place.  Among other things, 45 Christians—including women and children—were killed, several tortured to death; mass graves were discovered; all of Sadad’s 14 churches, some ancient, were ransacked and destroyed; the bodies of six people from one family, ranging from ages 16 to 90, were found buried at the bottom of a well (an increasingly common fate for “subhuman” Christians).

The jihadis even made a graphic video (with English subtitles) of those whom they massacred, while shouting Islam’s victory-cry, “Allahu Akbar” (or “Allah is greater,” which John McCain equated to a Christian saying “thank God”).  Another video, made after Sadad was liberated, shows more graphic atrocities.

The day before rebels invaded Sadad, on Sunday, October 20, the Church of the Virgin Mary in Warraq near Cairo, Egypt, was attacked during a wedding ceremony, leaving four dead and nearly two dozen wounded.  According to a report issued by forensics, two of those murdered were young girls, each named Mary:  12-year-old Mary Nabil Fahmy, who took five shots in the chest, and 8-year-old Mary Ashraf Masih (“Masih” meaning “Christ”), who took a bullet in the back which burst from the front.

As happens frequently in Egypt and other Islamic nations, the security forces charged with protecting the church were seen leaving their posts immediately before the massacre began.  Similarly, in the words of Asia News, “Eye-witnesses of the al-Warraq attack confirm that despite numerous distress calls, police and ambulances only arrived on the scene two hours after the shooting.”

Both the massacres in Syria and Egypt received scant attention and even less condemnation by Western media and government.  Instead, people like Mohamed Elibiary, an Obama administration Homeland Security advisercondemned Copts who raise awareness of anti-Christian violence in Egypt as promoting “Islamophobic” bigotry.

Similarly, although Christians are habitually killed in Muslim countries—as this monthly series attests—with little condemnation or even acknowledgment by the U.S. government, when five Muslims were killed in western Burma,  the United States, according to Voice of America, formally condemned it, “urging authorities to do more to address the long-standing sectarian tension there.”

The rest of October’s roundup of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is not limited to) the following accounts, listed by theme and country in alphabetical order, not necessarily according to severity:

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Egypt & Russia: Cold War Alliances Revived

636122-01-08-414x350by :

U.S. support for the Muslim Brotherhood and the nuclear deal with Iran is propelling the Arab world into the arms of Russia. The Egyptian government, formerly a U.S. ally, will buy $2 billion in arms from Russia, signaling a strategic realignment in the Middle East that leaves Putin in control.

Egypt’s open embrace of Russia started immediately after the Obama Administration suspended some military aid to the Egyptian government in response to the overthrow of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. While American aid continued unabated after the Islamists took over, it was cut after they were overthrown.

Support for America and President Obama in particular collapsed in Egypt in response. Only a single percent of Egyptians have confidence in the U.S. and three percent have confidence in Obama. The U.S. support for the Brotherhood has made it a casualty of the regional backlash against the Muslim Brotherhood.

Saudi Arabia is embarking on a similar course. Saudi officials now openly talk to reporters about how their country will be more independent in reaction to U.S. policy. Reports about the acquisition of Pakistani nuclear weapons are met with non-denials. The Saudis offered Russia a strategic alliance and major oil partnership if Putin abandons the Assad regime.

“We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president [Obama], which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white,” said Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former director of Saudi intelligence.

The Royal Family of Bahrain, a foe of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, feels the same way. Crown Prince al-Khalifa recently said, “America seems to suffer from schizophrenia when it deals with the Arab world.”

He compared the U.S. unfavorably to Russia; a shocking assessment considering Bahrain’s hostility to Putin.

“The Russians have proved that they are reliable friends,” he explained.

This trend didn’t start after the Arab Spring brought the Muslim Brotherhood to the forefront. It started shortly after President Obama took the oath of office. By June 2010, Egyptian and Jordanian officials were privately fretting about American diplomacy, specifically how the administration was reaching out to Syria.

“Only if you’re tough with America and adopt an anti-U.S. stance will the U.S. have a more flexible attitude and pay you,” an Egyptian official anonymously stated.

Read more at Front Page