U.S. Ambassador to Egypt: “Muslim Brotherhood’s Lackey”

by Raymond Ibrahim:

These reasons and more demonstrate why Ambassador Anne Patterson is disliked in Egypt, and also the pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies of the current U.S. administration.

Why do millions of Egyptians, including politicians and activists, consider Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, a “stooge” for the Muslim Brotherhood — as she is so commonly referred to by many in Egypt, from the media down to the street?

In America, some are aware of matters, such as that

Patterson in particular resisted opportunities to criticize the Morsi government as it implemented increasingly authoritarian policies. In a memorable May interview with the Egyptian English-language news sit[e] Ahram Online, she repeatedly dodged pointed questions about Morsi’s leadership. “The fact is they ran in a legitimate election and won,” she said…. Republicans from Texas Senator Ted Cruz to House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce have pounced on statements like these, increasingly seeing Patterson as the key implementer for a policy that at least offers tacit support to the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

 

Egyptians protesting in Cairo, in July 2013.

 

If one follows the Egyptian media, however, one discovers that the reasons Egyptians dislike Patterson are many and unambiguous.

Last week, for example, El Fagr reported that, during their most recent phone conversation, Patterson demanded that Egypt’s recently appointed Supreme Commander of the Egyptian Armed Forces, General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, release all Muslim Brotherhood members currently being held for questioning: “And when Sisi rejected this order, the American ambassador began threatening him that Egypt will turn into another Syria and live through a civil war, to which Sisi responded violently: ‘Neither you nor your country can overcome Egypt and its people.’”

Earlier, Patterson was reported as “trying to communicate with General Sisi, demanding dialogue with the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and concessions to them,” to which Sisi reportedly retorted: “Stop meddling in our affairs… the Egyptian people are capable of looking after their own welfare.”

These are just the latest samplings from Egypt concerning the ambassador’s attempts to reinstate the Brotherhood to power. The day before the fundamentalist Salafi “Nour” party withdrew from negotiations with Egypt’s interim government, Al Nahar reported that Patterson had “incited them [the Salafi Nour Party] to tamper with the political scene and the road map and to threaten to withdraw from political participation if Dr. Muhammad Baradei becomes elected as Prime Minister…”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

“Whoever Fights Us, Fights Islam”

236by Raymond Ibrahim

Their more radical brethren will always say, “True Muslims support Sharia: if you reject this, you are no Muslim. You are an apostate, an infidel, an enemy.”

In the ongoing conflict between those Egyptians who strongly oppose a Sharia-based constitution — moderates, secularists, non-Muslim minorities — and those who are strongly pushing for it — the “Islamists” — are currently evoking the one argument that has always, from the very beginnings of Islam, empowered Islamists over moderates in the Muslim world: that anyone who disagrees with them disagrees with Islam.

Examples are many. According to a December 1 report from El Fagr, for example, Gamal Sabr, the former campaign coordinator for the anti-freedom Salafi presidential candidate Abu Ismail, made the division clear during an Al Jazeera interview, where he said: “Whoever disagrees with him, disagrees with Islam itself;” and that many Egyptians “are fighting Islam in the picture of President Muhammad Morsi and in the picture of the Islamists.” He was clearly implying that they are one with Islam, and to fight them is to fight Islam.

The logic is simple: Sabr, as well as those millions of Egyptians who want Sharia, presumably only want what Allah wants: that Egypt should be governed under Sharia law. According to this position, any and all Muslims who disagree, who do not want to be governed by Sharia law, whatever their arguments, are showing that they are at odds with Islam itself.

Sabr is hardly the only Egyptian Muslim making use of this age-old argument. A Dostor report, which also appeared on December 1, quotes Tarek Zomar making the same point. Zomar, a former leader of the infamous Gam’a Islamiyya, was once imprisoned for his role in the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. Released with the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, he is a now a member of the Shura Council of Egypt’s Parliament. According to Zomor, whoever votes against the Sharia-based constitution that Morsi is trying to enforce, “is an infidel”— an apostate enemy of Allah to be killed for the cause of Islam.

Even Ahmed Morsi, President Muhammad Morsi’s son, accused the many demonstrators in Tahrir Square, who object to his father’s attempts to impose Sharia on them, of belonging to the “former regime”—code for secularist-minded people, who are opposed to the totality of Sharia law. Writing on his Facebook account, he asserted that “all the people in Tahrir Square are remnants of the old regime.” He added: “My father will eliminate them soon.”

Such is the difficulty encountered by moderate Muslims, past and present: How can they justify their rejection of Islamic teachings, as captured in the Quran, hadith [the supposed teachings and actions of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as reported 200 years after his death -- as if we were now just starting to write about George Washington], as well as the words of the Islamic scholars throughout the ages, all of which constitute the “Sharia” of Islam, a word that simply means the “Way” of Islam?

Read more at Gatestone Institute

The Rape of Christopher Stevens

By Raymond Ibrahim:

By obsessing over the 14-minute YouTube Muhammad video and its maker, the mainstream media ultimately exonerates the inexcusable and murderous response of the Islamic world.

There is only one question: did those who make this movie break any law?  No, they did not—and so the matter should end there, and the media should move on.  Focusing on those who did not break any American laws as a way to take the focus off those who murdered and initiated an act of war against the United States is not only misleading; it validates and gives Islamic blasphemy laws precedence over American freedoms.

Worse, even if making movies deemed offensive to Muslims was illegal in the U.S., the fact is, these embassy attacks, which “coincidentally” began on September 11, have nothing to do with the movie.  On September 10, I wrote an article titled “Jihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo.” The demand that the U.S. release its imprisoned jihadis, including the Blind Sheikh, was behind these threats.  There was no mention of  “offensive movies.” My source, El Fagr, an Arabic website, reported all this on September 8.

In other words, several days before Muslims were angry about this movie they were threatening to burn down the U.S. embassy in Cairo.  I had even seen sporadic Arabic reports, from months back, talking about “extremist elements” threatening the embassy.  The movie is just a pretext—aided and abetted by the media, not to mention the Obama administration: Hillary Clinton called the video “disgusting and reprehensible,” wording which is more befitting those who murdered (and possibly raped, see below) Americans; the U.S. embassy itself apologized for those who “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims”; and the administration asked YouTube to remove the 14 minute trailer.

Thus the U.S. administration validates Islam’s blasphemy laws and, once again, aligns itself with America’s jihadi enemies.

Seventy-year-old, retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) put it well, when he suggested that the administration’s response to the embassy attacks was akin to a court asking a rape victim for an apology, saying: “It’s like the judge telling the woman who got raped, ‘You asked for it because of the way you dressed.’”

Nor is the rape entirely allegorical.  According to the Arabic website Tayyar, “the American ambassador in Libya [Christopher Stevens] was sexually raped  before being killed by the gunmen who stormed the embassy  building in Benghazi last night [Tuesday, September 11],  in protestation of a film insulting to the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him.”

Read more at Front Page