Georgetown Panel Sides with Muslim Brotherhood

jkFront Page, by :

Egyptians are “literally split in half” on President Mohammed Morsi’s 2013 downfall, former Obama Administration adviser Dahlia Mogahed stated recently in citing polling data at Georgetown University.  Yet the pro-Muslim Brotherhood (MB) bias of the January 29, 2014, conference at which Mogahed spoke did little justice to the “deep division” facing Egypt, notwithstanding her calls for “pluralism” to overcome the country’s “huge polarization.”

Mogahed addressed the day-long conference “Egypt & the Struggle for Democracy” presented by Georgetown’s Prince Awaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU).  Originally scheduled for December 5, 2013, the conference made headlines even before opening.  Ramy Jan, one of the rare Egyptian Christians opposing Morsi’s removal, lost his ACMCU conference invitation after his past involvement in Egypt’s neo-Nazi party became known.

Conference participants universally mourned a “new born democracy …assassinated” in Egypt before completing a necessary “trial and error” process, as described by activist Nahla Nasser of Egyptians Abroad for Democracy (EAD).  A late conference addition, Nasser described visiting Rabia al-Adawiya Square before its bloody clearing by Egyptian forces on August 14, 2013.  Nasser found the pro-MB demonstrators there to be the “most respectful people I have ever met in my entire life.”

Making the questionable assertion that revolutionary change is “often from bad to good,” Middle East scholars like Maryam Jamshidi praised a post-Hosni Mubarak “burgeoning of the public square.”  Dalia Fahmy saw emerging during this time “political pluralism within political Islam.”  The MB-affiliated Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) “ultimately played by the rules of the game,” Maha Azzam said, only to have the Egyptian military stop the “emergence of moderate Islamist parties.”

Under Morsi, “democracy mattered to” Egypt’s common people for the first time, assessed law professor Mohammed Fadel.  Egyptians “lived a very good year” under Morsi because of a “sense of belonging” after democracy replaced dictatorship, concurred Abdel Mawgoud al-Dardery.  “We were sure that our votes meant a lot,” the former Egyptian FJP parliamentarian said.  Egyptians should “respect the process and not change the rules of the game” in contrast to the military overthrow of Morsi, the self-proclaimed supporter of sharia argued.

By comparison, the Georgetown panelists only saw no justification for the military’s intervention against Morsi.  Egyptian security institutions’ “vested interests” in matters such as state-owned businesses were the explanation for Morsi’s deposing given by Wael Haddara, a former Morsi adviser.  The Egyptian military expressed an attitude of Egypt “returned to its proper owners,” the former MB youth leader Mohamed Abbas stated via translation by ACMCU faculty member Jonathan Brown.

“Hysterical coverage” in the media was a significant cause of Morsi’s downfall, according to the Egyptian media scholar Mohamad Elmasry. “Many journalists perceive themselves to be activists” in Egypt, Elmasry criticized.  That “Morsi was fundamentally incompetent” and was “Brotherhoodizing the state” in the name of a “mini-caliphate” were common media themes during Morsi’s presidency described as “myth” by Elmasry.  Although Egypt’s “state-run press” is “historically a mouthpiece of the government,” under Morsi this press was “not the typical mouthpiece.”  While 81% of Al Ahram articles in 2008 were favorable to Mubarak, they were mostly neutral to Morsi when in power, according to Elmasry’s coding.

Morsi’s overthrow, meanwhile, resulted in returning “military rule with a vengeance,” according to Azzam.  While “power was defuse” under Morsi, according to Jamshidi, now it was “concentrated” again under the new post-Morsi constitution approved in a January 14-15, 2014, referendum.  This constitution strengthened “already powerful” state institutions and a “custodial status” to the military in particular, complained Fahmy.  After an expected presidential elections sweep, General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, the officer who brought down Morsi, will influence parliamentary elections and create a “rubber stamp” legislature helpless against the constitution’s executive predominance.

An “anti-Ikwhan [MB] fever” incited by a repressive military meant that “there is now no real civil society” in Egypt, stated former MB member Islam Lotfy Shalaby via Brown’s translation.  The military had closed numerous MB social service institutions serving thousands such as 80% of the schools in Egypt and the country’s largest hospital founded in 1924.  Seized MB assets amounted to ten billion Egyptian pounds (about $1.3 billion).

MB suppression also occurred in the media, leaving “essentially a singular voice” in Elmasry words that constantly condemned MB as, for example, a terrorist organization.  This served “to dehumanize the Brotherhood” and “to justify the massacres,” as manifested in a television show on the Rabia clearing with theRocky soundtrack.  Narratives of MB as terrorist and disloyal to Egypt were “extremely effective” in winning Sisi support according to Jamshidi.

Popular anti-MB sentiment meant that the “line between citizen and state repression has been blurred,” Jamshidi added.  “Popularly sanctioned state violence” stemming from “demonization” of certain Egyptians as “literally subhuman” manifested for Mogahed a “moral and spiritual crisis.”  Fadel, meanwhile, rather unconvincingly discussed how the political Rabia crackdown was religious persecution of Muslims under Article 7 in the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court.

Yet even the Georgetown panelists could not hide conflicting evidence.  While the anti-Mubarak protests beginning on January 25, 2011, were “very Egyptian,” the anti-Morsi protests beginning on June 30, 2013, were “very sectarian” in Dardery’s estimation.  “Egyptians united” characterized January 25 (82% of Egyptians desired Mubarak’s removal in a March 2011 poll noted by Mogahed) as opposed to “Egyptians divided” on June 30, concurred Shahin.  Egyptian confidence in their military, though, has stayed high at around 95% of those surveyed throughout two years of various upheavals following Mubarak’s resignation.

A “failure to build consensus” thus appeared to the Carnegie Endowment’s Michelle Dunne as causing the post-Mubarak revolution’s failure.  “We knew what we were against, but we did not know what we were for,” concurred Dardery with Dunne in discussing the anti-Mubarak “breadth of social consensus” described by Middle East scholar Nathan Brown.  Yet a “basic failure in Egyptian life” noted by Brown is that widely diverse Egyptians are unable “to deal with each other.”  While Dardery spoke of an “Islamic belief” that “Muslim and Christians are brothers,” Brown countered that “you have a got a problem in your camp” concerning sectarianism.

By overlooking key facts in Egypt’s complicated politics, the Georgetown conference if anything hindered developing Egyptian consensus across diversity.  Sisi’s authoritarianism aside, Amnesty International actually judges the 2014 constitution an “improvement over the 2012 version” passed under Morsi with its various Islamist rights restrictions.  Egypt’s “strong contrast with Tunisia” in social cohesion noted by Dunne occurred precisely in part because of Islamist renunciation of sharia in the new Tunisian constitution overwhelming adopted on January 26, 2014.

The Egyptian people might agree as well despite repression muzzling constitution opponents in the 2014 referendum.  Voting for the new constitution was 98.1% of the 38.6% of the electorate voting, about 20 million in absolute numbers.  This was eight million more than the 63% of roughly a third of the electorate voting for the 2012 constitution under Morsi and six million more than for voted for his presidency that year.  Any criticism of Sisi as a “modern day pharaoh,” moreover, ignores the insight of longtime Egypt resident and scholar Raymond Stock that this “land…has known largely that kind of rule for the past five millennia.”  As ACMCU’s John Voll noted in introducing the conference, many of its themes such as the compatibility of Islam and democracy remained unchanged from Voll’s 1961 graduate student days.

No conciliation was forthcoming from the panelists to their absent opponents.  Support for Sisi’s regime due to Islamist fears by Egyptian democracy organizations “disqualifies them as true and valid organizations” in Nasser’s eyes, for example.  The “political and religious despotism” under Morsi leading to a “Sunni theocracy similar to the Iranian model” denounced by various Egyptian human rights organizations on June 27, 2013, apparently did not concern Nasser.  Nor did Nasser heed the call of many of these same organizations on August 15, 2013, that MB “accept the political outcome of the June 30 uprising” and “return to peaceful politics” rather than spur the country toward a civil war.”  Contrasting with concern for the Rabia dead, meanwhile, ACMCU’sYvonne Haddad referenced a “quote/unquote massacre of the Copts.”

Dardery wore on his lapel the yellow and black R4BIA symbol in memory of Rabia, the same symbol featured by the twitter profiles of Haddara and Nasser.  The symbol’s website celebrates the “great Egyptian scholar and thinker Professor Sayyid Qutb” of MB executed in Egypt in 1966.  The website also proclaims that “R4BIA is…the grandchildren of [MB founder] Hasan Al Banna…against rotten Western values…the end of capitalists…the end of Zionists,” and “smiling martyrdom,” among other things.

Such sentiments ominously shade the pro-MB militancy expressed at Georgetown.  Azzam described a “generation in Egypt…not willing to take this lying down,” a generation that “would rather die” in Haddara’s words rather than accept Sisi’s new order.  “I am optimistic that the coup will not stand,” he concluded, “people will fight to bring it down.”

Sharia and the New Egyptian Constitution

shariaby :

The single greatest priority of the United States and other Western governments towards Egypt should be to encourage the drafting of a constitution based on full equality of all citizens. This means the new constitution cannot be based in Sharia law.

The US and EU claim to care about human rights and women’s rights, which were increasingly suppressed and targeted under Morsi. After Morsi’s ouster, Copts have borne the brunt of Muslim Brotherhood outrage through targeted murders and kidnappings of Copts and destruction of their churches, monasteries, schools, homes and businesses.  According to a recent Reuters report, Egypt is the very worst country in which to be a woman: “Egypt scored badly in almost every category, including gender violence, reproductive rights, and treatment of women in the family and their inclusion in politics and the economy.”

Unfortunately, many in the West seem blind to the far-ranging impact that the denial of religious freedom has on an entire society. Citing from The Price of Freedom Denied, a letter from the international religious freedom community to President Obama, says, “where there is less religious freedom, there is less women’s empowerment, less economic development, and more political instability and conflict, violent extremism and terrorism.”

If we want to see an Egypt in which poverty is decreased due to economic development, in which women are empowered to participate in politics, receive an education, work, and travel without fear of harassment; in which individuals can practice their faith both publically and privately without fear of attack on their person, possessions, and houses of worship, and a country that is stable without constant terrorists attacks, the single greatest antidote would be to ensure religious freedom for all, which has been proven through Pew research to improve all these other aspects of society and economy.

This is the very discussion happening with the drafting of the new constitution in Egypt. Islamists such as the Salafists (the “export” version of the notorious Saudi Wahabis), and those sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood insist that the new Constitution must be based on Sharia law even more explicitly than previous constitutions have been. If the constitutional committee does not comply, they face the threat of even greater terrorism and violence by the Muslim Brotherhood and a withdrawal of support from the Salafists in finalizing the constitution.

Egypt’s constitutions saw the mention of Sharia for the first time when Sadat in 1971 inserted in Article 2 that “principles of Sharia” be “a” main source of legislation. In a further effort to appease Islamists, he changed the stipulation in 1980 to make “principles of Sharia the main source of legislation.” In an attempt to clarify these “principles,” the Constitutional Court defined them (in May 1993) as the “Sharia injunctions, which are peremptory in proof (of origin) and significance,” somewhat limiting the possibility of applying the myriads of interpretations and rulings that date back to the tenth century. The Court further clarified that the constitutional article was addressed to legislators (not to judges) and that it was not applicable retroactively on existing laws.

Family status is entirely based on Sharia and matters related to adoption, heritage or custody apply to non-Muslims as well. More important than impacting the legislation over three decades, Article 2 had a devastating effect on Egypt. It implicitly justified treating non-Muslims as second class citizens and set the foundation of the process of Islamization of the country. Both Mubarak’s regime and the Islamists, led by the Brotherhood, participated in a competition, whose terrain was the media, education and societal behavior, to be regarded as “more pious” than the other. It set the stage for the emergence of “religious parties,” calling for ever more Sharia-compliant measures. Appealing to raw religious passions and instincts of uneducated masses, they used “the ballot box” to democratically impose fascistic rule–just as happened with the Brotherhood during the past two years.

Read more at Front Page

 

No, It’s Not the Same Sharia Provision as in the Old Egyptian Constitution

sharia rules egyptPJ Media:

By Andrew McCarthy

I’ve now been in a few debates about Egypt’s new draft constitution, which will be put to a vote next week — in fact, I debated Abbas Barzegar, an assistant professor of Islam at Georgia State University, on Sean Hannity’s radio show on Monday. As one would easily predict, it has become a key talking point of the constitution’s Islamist supporters that, in so far as concerns sharia (Islam’s societal framework and legal code), the new constitution marks no change. The new draft simply repeats, it is said, the old Sadat/Mubarak-era constitution’s stipulation that the “principles of sharia” govern.

This is an absurd claim. Of course, that won’t stop them from trying to make it fly … or stop the Western media, in the throes of spring fever, from repeating their assertions.

The new constitution’s provisions have been well summarized by Professor Rubin, whose post — which addresses this subject in addition to several other important ones — I highly recommend. I want to begin by stepping outside the substance of the constitution, though. Note that the non-Islamist factions resigned from the constituent assembly (the body tasked with drafting the new constitution) in explicit protest over its transparent Islamist character. Does anyone really think this would have happened if the new constitution were not a sharp turn toward Islamic supremacism and its attendant oppression of women, religious minorities, homosexuals, and other non-Islamists?

Now, back to substance. Yes, article 2 of the draft repeats the former constitution’s command that “Principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation.” This repetition leads Islamists and their apologists to contend that adherence to sharia won’t be any more strict under Islamist rule than it was during Mubarak’s reign — notwithstanding that right now, even before the new constitution has been formally adopted, there is already far more sharia governance (and oppression) than there was before the old regime fell.

In reality, the new constitution’s repetition of article 2  is just the beginning of the discussion, not, as the Muslim Brotherhood’s apologists would have it, the end. From the premise of sharia principles as the core, the new constitution proceeds with three radical innovations.

First is the way the new constitution fleshes out what is meant by “principles.” The term will be governed by the four classical schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence. These four schools consider virtually all questions to have been settled a millennium ago. This means Islamic reformers and modernizers will be foreclosed from effecting any softening of classical sharia’s adhesive provisions. To be sure, the Brotherhood may not reinstate the stoning of adulterers and other cruel hudud penalties tomorrow. But that will be based on a political calculation — as my friend David Goldman has observed, Egypt is a financial basket case and can’t afford to give irrevocable offense to its Western white knights (assuming they are still capable of being offended by anything Islamists do). The point is that there will be no legal retreat on classical sharia, and gradually it will become ever more repressive.

That is also the guaranteed outcome of the second innovation: The new constitution appoints al-Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning, as the final arbiter of what sharia means. This thrusts the scholars of that institution (whose alumni include Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik of World Trade Center bombing fame, and Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s top jurist) into the full range of Egyptian life and affairs, since there is no aspect of human endeavor that sharia would not control.

Finally, there is Article 81, which follows the disingenuous scheme Islamists have previously adopted in the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (also known as the “Cairo Declaration“) and in the constitutions of such other new “Islamic democracies” as Afghanistan and Iraq. That is, after a few soothing lines about how individual “rights and freedoms” are sacrosanct, not “subject to disruption or detraction,” the constitution goes on to say: “Such rights and freedoms shall be practiced in a manner not conflicting with the principles pertaining to State and society included in Part I of this Constitution.” And what are those “principles” in the “State and Society” section of the draft? Why, they are the ones that say principles of sharia govern all legislation — again, “principles” as construed by al-Azhar, using the ancient interpretations of the four classical Sunni schools of jurisprudence. Bottom line: Egyptians have only the rights and freedoms permitted under sharia.

When all the verbal camouflage is swept away, the new constitution delivers on what Mohamed Morsi, during the Egyptian presidential campaign, promised he would deliver: “The sharia, then the sharia, and finally the sharia.” As the now-dictator elaborated at the rally on the eve of the election (in a speech translated by MEMRI):

This nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through the Islamic sharia. I take an oath before Allah and before you all that regardless of the actual text [of the constitution]. … Allah willing, the text will truly reflect [the sharia], as will be agreed upon by the Egyptian people, by the Islamic scholars, and by legal and constitutional experts…. Rejoice and rest assured that this people will not accept a text that does not reflect the true meaning of the Islamic sharia as a text to be implemented and as a platform. The people will not agree to anything else.

The apologists who don’t see that as a change from Mubarak days are the same ones telling you that Morsi is a “moderate” and that the Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization.

Watch Abbas Barzegar try to pedal the same lie that Morsi’s constituion is no different than the Mubarak era as regards sharia. It is very important to the Muslim Brotherhood in the US that we do not see sharia as a threat. Brigitte and Hannity are having none of it!

The New Sharia Egypt

By Robert Spencer:

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt announced Wednesday, according to the Associated Press, that it was “committed to enshrining Islamic Shariah law as the main source of a new constitution, seeking to mollify ultraconservative Islamists who accuse the group of not advocating strongly enough for Islamic rule.” It is hard to see how anyone can accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of not acting quickly enough to bring Sharia to Egypt, but if the group was indeed hesitating in any way, it is no longer. And thus we shall soon come to the crowning end of Barack Obama’s “Arab Spring” foreign policy.

Obama, it must be recalled, applauded the “Arab Spring” from the beginning. He spoke with satisfaction in February 2011 about “the peaceful transition to democracy” that was taking place in Egypt, and said that he was pleased that “the change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. This change doesn’t represent the work of the United States or any foreign power. It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life.” He vowed that “throughout this time of transition, the United States will continue to stand up for freedom, stand up for justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people.”

The one thing the President didn’t explain was his justification for believing that the Egyptian people actually cared as much as he assumed they did in principles and rights such as the freedom of speech and the dignity of all people, both of which are mitigated under Islamic law. Nor did Obama touch on why he assumed that they held an understanding of freedom and justice that was remotely comparable to that of the American constitutional system.

By now it is abundantly clear that they do not, to the dismay of Egypt’s embattled secularists. In mid-September, Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW), according to Egypt’s State Information Service, “expressed its profound dismay at statements made by some members of the Constituent Assembly in charge of writing Egypt’s new constitution on the possibility of sanctioning marriage of sexually mature girls even if they were at the age of nine. The NCW described such viewpoint as a setback to child rights and is only expressive of outdated traditions still prevailing in the Egyptian society.”

Those “outdated traditions,” of course, are firmly based in Islamic law and the example of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. “The Prophet,” according to an authoritative hadith, “wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88). Muhammad being the supreme example of conduct for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21), child marriage is sanctioned by his example. So it is no surprise that Muslim Brotherhood Egypt would be considering legalizing it.

Read more at Front Page

Egypt Draft Constitution Institutes Sharia as Law of Land

Egyptians in Cairo chant against the Muslim Brotherhood and demand for the Sharia-based constitution to be dissolved (Photo: Reuters)

by: Ryan Mauro

The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists are at odds over the exact language of the draft Egyptian constitution, but the difference is meaningless. Sharia will be the law of the land. And the U.S. responseis that it is withholding judgment until a constitution is officially proposed but so far, so good!

The dispute is over the precise definition of the role of Sharia in Article 2. The Muslim Brotherhood is satisfied with declaring “the principles” of Sharia to be the main source of legislation. The Salafists want it to say that Sharia (not its principles) is the main source of legislation. That is what the fuss is over.

On October 18, the Muslim Brotherhood’s official website carried a statement from Dr. Mahmoud Ghozlan, a leader in its Guidance Bureau that sits on the Constitutional Assembly that is writing the draft. It claims that an agreement has been reached, but the Salafists are still planning demonstrations on November 2.

Ghozlan says that the General Provisions section of the constitution will define what is meant by the language of Article 2:

“The principles of Islamic Sharia include general evidence and fundamentalist bases, rules and jurisprudence, as well as sources accepted by doctrines of Sunni Islam and the majority of Muslim scholars,” it reads.

In other words, the institution of Sharia.

The fact that even this isn’t strong enough language for the Salafists shows how radical they are. By the way, the Salafists won about 20% of the vote in the parliamentary elections.

Non-Islamists are also outraged about the language of another part of the draft. Article 68 reads, “The state shall take all measures to establish the equality of women and men in the areas of political, cultural, economic and social life, as well as other areas, insofar as this does not conflict with the rulings of Islamic Sharia.”

Manal El-Tibi, a human rights activist, saw what was happening and quit the Constituent Assembly. She complained that the Assembly is stacked with Islamists and “they want not only an Islamic Egypt but a Caliphate … I saw all the dirty details.”

Read more at Radical Islam

Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org’s National Security Analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

Arabic Sources Reveal Shocking Information about the attacks on U.S. Embassy in Egypt

Walid Shoebat:

The storming of the U.S. embassy in Cairo on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is not coincidental, despite the claims made by those behind it – as well as the liberal western media – that it was in response to an anti-Muslim film released in the U.S. Arabic sources, once translated, again tell the real story.

On September 10th, advertisements that encouraged people to join in the protests of the film were in abundance.

The idea came from the Nour Salafist party’s Ahmed Khalil and Nadder Bakkar. Here is a rough translation:

Nour Party announced in a statement on the official facebook page of the party, support for participation in the vigil held in front of the U.S. embassy on the fifth evening (Tuesday) to condemn the film for offending the Prophet (peace be upon him) on American television. The Engineer Jalal, once Secretary-General of the party, said that a number of party leaders are taking part in the vigil, led by Dr. Ahmed Khalil and Nader Bakkar, in addition to members of the party from the various provinces.”

This was sent out one day before the 9/11 anniversary. So we can conclude that the agitation was started days before, then advertised on September 10 to turn out on September 11th specifically.

Yet, all this had nothing to do with the sarcastic film about Muhammad.

I find no reason as to why 9/11 was chosen as a date to attack two U.S. Embassies (Egypt and Libya). This is not a Box Office movie. I haven’t examined the source of the movie but I saw some parts of it.

The Arabic sources show that this was in support of al-Qaeda day, posting al-Qaeda flags and some of the chanting was about reminding Americans that there are many al-Qaedas (ie Nour Party). Americans should ask themselves a hard question:

If our enemy is al-Qaeda exclusively, then why is an entire political party – which makes up over 20% of Egypt’s new Parliament – aligning with al-Qaeda?

Attacks on U.S. Embassies had very little to do with the latest film and much more to do with the old story of the Muhammad Cartoon and the failure of Muslims to prosecute internationally the culprits who drew the Muhammad cartoons. This will be another attempt to change the laws globally.

Wisam Abdul Waris of Dar Al-Hekma (House of Wisdom) – about whom the Nour Salafist party announced publicly that its call to demonstrate was in support of – began a call to push for the passage of laws to be placed in the Egyptian Constitution – as well as internationally – that would make it illegal to criticize Islam.

Wisam’s words translated are:

We have moved to review with Mr. Rifai all the legal procedures today by which we created The Voice of Wisdom Coalition (I’itilaf Sawt al-Hekma); it will hold accountable everyone who insults Islam locally and internationally, in accordance with every country’s laws. We all know the problems Yasser Al-Habib had in London and after that in Berlin… in Germany, an extremist group was allowed to publicize cartoons that insult the prophet in front of the Salafist Mosque in Berlin, through a legal decision. So what we did was to ask Sharabi Mahmoud to reject this legal decision on behalf of the Egyptian people who are Muslim; for this reason, we created this coalition. We also made an official request from the Church in Egypt to issue a public announcement, to state it has nothing to do with this deed.

Then you have the official statements from the Nour Salafist party, which announces an official partnering with this call.

It had no reference to the current movie, which means that they simply searched for anything to use as an excuse. They could find nothing major except a satirical video.

Of course, you have daily satires in the United States about Muhammad that technically should be considered far worse.

This demonstration was about one thing – creating havoc to apply pressure that would lead to a change in Egyptian Constitution by Nour:

Salafi Nour Party officially joined the Commonwealth of ‘voice of wisdom’ with Wisam Abdul Waris, as well as with Nader Bakkar, the party’s official spokesman and Dr. Ahmed Khalil Khairallah, member of the supreme body.

Said Bakkar:

Ahmed Khalil of the supreme body and I joined the Association of the voice of wisdom with Dr. Wisam Abdul Waris as official representatives from Nour Party and the Salafist call.

Bakkar then added that the association…

…aims for legal prosecution for anyone of harm to Islam at home and abroad.

Bakkar said the following in remarks on his personal facebook page:

…after the movie that abused the Prophet (peace be upon him), none will dare object to our determination to put an article in the constitution that criminalizes insults of the divine through portrayal or animation of the prophet, His companions, and all His House and mothers of the believers… this is the least we can do.”

In other words, the persistence of Muslims in the past to pass legislation, both internationally and locally, is the reason why they orchestrated this demonstration in which an American was killed in Libya.

How the Libyan Muslims were also able to wreak havoc through community organizing-style agitation is the next part of my investigation.

With video of Egyptians removing the American flag while carrying the black al-Qaeda flags reminding Americans “we are all al-Qaeda” and on 9/11 inside the Embassy compound is a clear message to remind Americans that 9/11 is not over.

To boot, they think they can get Americans to believe that doing so had nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with this video:

Americans, can you feel that finger poking you in the chest yet?

Read more…