With friends like these: Was Egypt involved in the #Benghazi massacre?

June 2, 2013
US Consulate, Benghazi

“For Reasons of State”

The idea seems insane — Egypt participating in the assault on our consulate, when they desperately need outside help to keep their economy (barely) functioning? Sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories, and Egyptian society thrives on such, but journalist Cynthia Farahat presents enough interesting facts to make one go “hmmmm:”

The terrorist attack in Benghazi is far more disturbing than previously thought. Although it has not been reported in the U.S. media, the possibility exists that the Egyptian government may have played an operational role in the attack. YouTube videos of the terrorist strike raise a serious problem that only an Arabic speaker would detect: some of the terrorists are speaking in the Egyptian dialect of the Arabic language.

Indeed, one of the videos shot with a cell phone of one of the attackers emerged around the time four Americans were killed. It shows a mob approaching the American compound under siege, clearly telling the terrorists in the dialect of Upper Egypt: “Mahadesh, mahadesh yermi, Dr. Morsi ba’atna” —which translates to: “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us.”

The words “Mahadesh yermi” for “don’t shoot” are characteristically spoken in Egyptian Arabic, while Libyans from Benghazi would say, “Matermey” for “don’t shoot.”

“Dr. Morsi” refers, of course, to president Mohamed Morsi of Egypt. The name Morsi is Egyptian and does not exist in any other Arabic speaking country.

Farahat also draws an interesting connection to an event I had forgotten about: at a campaign rally a couple of days after the Benghazi massacre, Obama said Egypt is not an ally, an amazing statement of the deterioration in our relations, given the close cooperation between Egypt and the US over the prior 30 years.

Could it be that US intelligence had picked up on the same linguistic clues Farahat noticed and came to the same conclusion, and that Obama was sending a veiled message that “we know what you did?”

Later on, Farahat discusses a possible explanation for Egypt’s involvement (if they were) that makes the idea at least plausible for me: that Morsi needed to placate more radical Muslim Brotherhood factions and so sent some guys to Libya to establish his jihadi “street cred:”

According to the MB and Sunni doctrine, it’s only permissible for Islamist leaders to maintain a ten-year duration of hodna (Islamic truce) with an infidel nation. This raises the question of whether breaking the truce was the root of the Sep. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi. That attack against America was, according to Islamist doctrine, the only way the MB would be allowed to renew a truce. The MB also might have possibly needed to legitimize their Islamic rule among their jihadist followers through exercising jihad.

So, you see, if true, Morsi had to participate in the massacre of our people in order to keep the hotheads on his side happy.

Nothing personal, you know?

Except it was very “personal” for Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyone Woods.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Irony alert: Eyes finally open, liberals hope for military coup in Egypt

January 30, 2013

From Andy McCarthy’s post at NRO’s “The Corner” blog on commentators rising calls for the Egyptian military to intervene as that country starts to fall apart:

Here’s the really interesting part: The [Egyptian] Left does not have the numbers needed to defeat the Islamists at the ballot box. That is why the latter have won election after election, usually by overwhelming numbers, thus putting Islamists firmly in charge of the government and ensuring passage of the sharia constitution. So what has finally happened: the Left-leaning press in the West is suddenly discovering that maybe popular elections do not equal democracy after all. Maybe there really is something to the notion that democracy is not merely a procedural means by which majorities achieve power; maybe democracy, as us Islamophobes have been contending all along, really is a culture that is committed to equality and respect for such minority rights as freedom of conscience and speech.

The liberal left’s obsession with procedure, seeing elections as synonymous with democracy, is a good portion of what lead to the folly of the Obama administration’s support for democratic-in-name-only “Arab Spring” revolutions in the Sunni Arab world. Instead we cut the legs out from under a friendly but authoritarian regime in Egypt, in the process doing untold damage to 30 years of American policy in the region, and we removed a cruel, crazy, but nevertheless harmless to us dictator in Libya, creating chaos in North Africa. (c.f., Mali)

But, at least, they’d have elections, so all would be good. Majority rule, and all that.

Except that the majority is turning out to be the very groups most hostile to the democracy we hold dear. smiley d'oh!

And now that their Wilsonian unicorn dreams have turned into nightmarish reality, they want a military coup.

Welcome to the waking world, kiddies.

PS: Longtime readers will recall that I supported the liberation of Iraq under George W. Bush, including the effort to help democratic, constitutional government to take root there. I still think it was worth trying –for reasons local to Iraq, I felt it was the one country in the Arab world in which this might work– but, thanks to the Obama administration’s precipitous and premature bug-out from Iraq, my opinion of that country’s democratic future has become much bleaker.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Obama administration arms Syrian Muslim Brotherhood?

December 13, 2012
Seal of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Seal of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I recommend reading all of Barry Rubin’s article on the factions in Syria, information that’s becoming more relevant as the civil war there seems to be entering its endgame as the battle for Damascus begins.

It’s this last part that jumps out at me, though:

The Libyan government gave 50 percent of the funds to finance the budget of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council (SNC) budget. Since Libya is very much a U.S. client, it’s reasonable to conclude that the Obama Administration encouraged this generosity. Yet this money was financing a Muslim Brotherhood front. A lot of arms have been flowing from Libya to Hamas and other terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip and to radical forces in Syria. Some claim that the U.S. government was coordinating that traffic though this has not yet been proven. But at least indirectly the U.S. government was helping to arm the Brotherhood by overseeing Qatar and Turkey delivering weapons to the Brotherhood’s militia without making any attempt to identify and arm moderate and non-Islamist forces instead.

This means the Obama Administration was using a barely disguised channel to pay for a revolutionary Islamist movement seeking to take over Syria. The fact that this group was also anti-American, antisemitic, and genocidal toward Jews seems significant.

The rest of the SNC budget came from Qatar (38 percent) and Saudi Arabia (12 percent).

If the administration thinks they can buy influence with Muslim Brotherhood groups –remember, the Brotherhood sees itself as waging “civilizational jihad” against us– then they’re either nuts, naive, or both. If the SNC comes to power, I advise all US Foreign Service staff there to carry weapons at all times.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) The Grand Jihad

February 3, 2012

Encounter Books recently published “The Grand Jihad: how Islam and the Left sabotage America,” by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. It’s a book I highly recommend as a study not of the threat of terrorism, per se, but of the assault on the Western liberal tradition of tolerant, pluralist politics. It is a battle waged by political, legal, and cultural means, in which jihadist Islam and the secular Left are allies.

The following video, narrated by Bill Whittle, looks at one aspect of this struggle: the Muslim Brotherhood and the feckless response of the Obama administration.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Friends and enemies: Muslim Brotherhood edition

May 4, 2011

In this episode, we learn to learn to tell friends from enemies by seeing what they say to each other in their own language.

Remember when our Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said this about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

At a House Intelligence Committee hearing earlier in the day, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) questioned Clapper about the threat posed by the group. Clapper replied by suggesting that the Egyptian part of the Brotherhood is not particularly extreme and that the broader international movement is hard to generalize about.

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

I wonder how DNI Clapper feels now, after the Muslim Brotherhood said this about Osama bin Laden’s death:

Statement from the Muslim Brotherhood on the assassination of Sheikh(1) Osama bin Laden

The whole world has lived and the especially the Muslims have suffered from a fierce media campaign to label Islam as terrorism and to describe the Muslims as violent, by attaching the September 11th attacks to al-Qaeda(2).

Today, the U.S. president has announced that a special task force of U.S. marines has succeeded in assassinating Sheikh Osama bin Laden, a woman, and one of his children, along with a number of his companions(3). [With this development], We find that we are facing a new situation.

The Muslim Brotherhood declares that they are against the use of violence generally, and against the methods of assassination, and they are with the fair trial of anyone accused of any crime, whatsoever(4).

The Muslim Brotherhood demands for the world (in general) and the Western world, as peoples and governments (particularly) to stop linking Islam with terrorism(5), and to deliberately correct the erroneous image which it has already promoted for a number of years.

The Muslim Brotherhood confirms that the legitimate resistance against foreign occupation for any country is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine law and international convention. Confusion [shuffling papers] between legitimate resistance and violence against innocent people was intended by the Zionist enemy in particular.(6)

And so long as the occupation remains, the legitimate resistance will remain. It is on America, the NATO pact, and the European Union to speedily end the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.(7)

The Muslim Brotherhood demands that the United States cease its intelligence operations(8) against the violators and to desist from interfering in the internal affairs of any Arab or Muslim country.

The Muslim Brotherhood

Cairo, on the 29 of Jumada 1 1432 A.H., corresponding to May 2, 2011

Translation by Sami al-Abasi at Pajamas Media, who notes that the English-language release was scrubbed for Western consumption. Be sure to read the whole thing. Meanwhile, I’ve highlighted some points above:

(1) The Brotherhood bestows an Arab title of honor and respect on bin Laden. Not quite what you’d expect of someone who’s been accused of perverting Islam, but then, really, the only difference between the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda is the point at which the resort to violence is acceptable. The Brotherhood thinks al-Qaeda went violent too soon, risking a Western backlash. Thus, their disagreement is over strategy and tactics, not goals. And, contrary to the multi-culti fluff we’re fed on TV, bin Laden understood Islam very well. As does the Brotherhood.

(2) Yeah, awfully unfair of us to do that, since it was only bin Laden himself who took credit for the attacks, and his Operations Chief, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who admitted planning it. We really shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

(3) “Companions” is a deliberate allusion to the Companions of Muhammad, the original generation who took up Islam and fought alongside him. Thus the Brotherhood again honors and elevates the man who slaughtered nearly 3,000 Americans and countless Muslims.

(4) A “fair trial” under Sharia law, of course, since no trial held under laws created by Man can ever be fair or just. Remember, to the Brotherhood and other Salafis, democracy is a sham; something to be exploited with the eventual goal of implementing Allah’s divine law.

(5) Again, Islam is treated so unfairly. Just because Muhammad himself repeatedly invoked terror is no reason to associate the religion he created with terrorism. Or something. For example:

Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’ –Ishak 326

(6) Bear in mind that the Brotherhood, as does its offshoot Hamas, considers Israel to be an “illegal occupation,” which means all Israelis are fair game for legitimate resistance terrorism. Key point: when the author distinguishes between legitimate targets and innocent victims, no Jews or Christians in Israel are innocent. And, hey, if you happen to get a few innocent Muslims, too, well… fortunes of war, and all that.

(7) And by this the Muslim Brotherhood supports terror attacks against American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, notwithstanding that those forces freed millions of Muslims from horrific tyrannies.

(8) By which the authors means the very kind of intelligence operations that allowed us to track down and kill bin Laden. Yeah, we’re going to jump right on that.

So here  we have an organization that, when speaking in its own language, sanctifies our deadliest enemy; demands that we fool ourselves about the nature of jihad and the role of terror in it, and that bin Laden himself was acting in that those traditions; and authorizes terror attacks against Americans and their allies. Oh, and tries to hide it with a sanitized English version.

I’d call that an enemy, wouldn’t you?

PS: Clapper is still an idiot.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


National Public Radio, or National Money-laundering Radio?

March 10, 2011

When James O’Keefe released his sting video of NPR executives trashing conservatives, Republicans, and Jews while currying favor with what they though were potential donors from a Muslim Brotherhood front group, he promised a follow up. I had a feeling he wasn’t just blowing smoke; a slow drip of explosive revelations is the style he honed while working under Andrew Breitbart.

But I never thought it would be this good. Offering to hide the source of a donation from the IRS?

In case you don’t want to watch the whole thing, here’s the key portion, via The Daily Caller:

New video released Thursday afternoon indicates National Public Radio intended to accept a $5 million donation from fictitious Muslim Brotherhood front group Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) Trust – and that the publicly funded radio network might have helped MEAC make the donation anonymously to protect it from a federal government audit.

When a man posing as Ibrahim Kasaam asked, “It sounded like you were saying NPR would be able to shield us from a government audit, is that correct?” NPR’s senior director of institutional giving, Betsy Liley, responded, “I think that is the case, especially if you are anonymous. I can inquire about that.” According to conservative James O’Keefe, whose Project Veritas organization conducted the NPR sting organization, the man posing as Kasaam made two follow-up phone calls to Liley after their lunch.

Liley said a $5 million donation would amount to about “10 years of support.”

Kasaam follows up by asking: “The fact that NPR is not only a tax-exempt organization, but also receives direct contributions from the government — does that invite some sort of government oversight or government examination of contributions, et cetera?”

Liley answered: “They have audited our programs at times and, I think, as part of that, they can look at our audited financials. If you are concerned in any way about that, that’s one reason you might want to be an anonymous donor. And, we would certainly, if that was your interest, want to shield you from that.

Emphasis added.

Liley goes on to say the same anonymous-donor protection was afforded to universities and other donors, but, come on! There’s a difference between taking money from, say, Notre Dame and covering up a gift from a self-admitted front for the Ikhwan. You know, the organization whose motto is:

“Allah is our goal, the Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our constitution, the Jihad is our way, and the Death for Allah is our most exalted wish.”

But, don’t worry; NPR will make sure no one in the government knows the money came from the same group that founded Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist organization by the Department of State.

Forget cutting their funding — NPR will be lucky if the FBI doesn’t show up with search warrants.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The new Khomeini? Qaradawi to preach in Egypt

February 17, 2011

Somewhere else I mentioned that I had the bad feeling that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Islamic supremacist and jihad-loving unofficial spiritual guide for the Muslim Brotherhood, would soon be making a triumphant return to his Egyptian homeland in a scene reminiscent of Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 return to Iran. And we all know how well that turned out.

But, frankly, I didn’t expect it this soon:

For the first time since he was banned from leading weekly friday prayers in Egypt 30 years ago, prominent Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi will lead thousands in the weekly prayers from Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Friday.

Sources told Al Arabiya that a military force will accompany the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars from his home to Tahrir Square, provide security for the prayers and accompany him back to his residence.

Al-Qaradawi last delivered a Friday prayer sermon in Egypt in 1981 after the assassination of former President Anwar el-Sadat.

Background on Qaradawi.

My estimation of the chances for any flowering of liberal democracy in Egypt just went from “slim” to “less than a snowball’s chance in the Sahara.”

via Allahpundit

RELATED: Lee Smith on just how dangerous Qaradawi’s return is.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Our Director of National Intelligence is a national clown

February 10, 2011

My God, only a clown could say the Muslim Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization. That person becomes a dangerous clown, however, when he is also the president’s Director of National Intelligence:

At a House Intelligence Committee hearing earlier in the day, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) questioned Clapper about the threat posed by the group. Clapper replied by suggesting that the Egyptian part of the Brotherhood is not particularly extreme and that the broader international movement is hard to generalize about.

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

Wow, that is just monumentally ignorant. Question for DNI Clapper: About that overarching agenda, do the words “civilization jihad” sound “secular” to you? Or how about this quote from the writings of one of the Brotherhood’s recent leaders?

“Allah is our goal, the Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our constitution, the Jihad is our way, and the Death for Allah is our most exalted wish.”

Yeah, I’d say that’s largely secular. I’d also say our national security is in great hands with General Clapper, but that would be a lie, too.

Moron.

LINKS: Brian Fairchild collects many recent “largely secular with no overarching agenda” statements from Brotherhood leaders.  Michael Ledeen considers the scary implications of Clapper’s claptrap. Ron Radosh wants Clapper fired, now. More from Allahpundit.

NOTE: Right after I started writing this, Politico updated their article (first link, above) to say Clapper was backing away from his statement, and FOX reports the White House is contradicting him. Sorry, too late. That horse named “Useful Idiot” has already left the barn.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Think the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t a threat? Think again.

February 9, 2011

Have a look at the guy they’ve tried twice to recruit as their leader.

HINT: He thinks Hitler was a divine punishment meant to put Jews “in their place.”


A pessimistic view of Egypt

January 30, 2011

Barry Rubin looks at three likely outcomes for the turmoil in Egypt and fears the worst case is most likely:

Second, the elite loses its nerve and fragments, in part demoralized by a lack of Western — especially U.S. — support. The Muslim Brotherhood throws its full weight behind the rebellion. Soldiers refuse to fire at or join the opposition. Eventually, a radical regime emerges, with the Muslim Brotherhood as either ruler or power behind the throne. Remember that the “moderate democratic” leaders have been largely radical and willing to work with the Brotherhood. In that case, it is a fundamental transformation.

The new regime turns against the West, tears up the peace treaty with Israel (in practice if not formally), and joins hands with Hamas. Iranian influence isn’t important with this regime, but that will be small comfort as it launches its own subversive efforts and even goes to war against Israel at some point in the future. This will be the biggest disaster for the region and the West since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. And in some ways it will be worse.

I fear he’s right.


Egypt: “Things are never so bad they can’t get worse.”

January 29, 2011

Those are the wise words of Michael Ledeen’s Grandma Mashe and, in the case of Egypt, I think she’s right. While the situation there right now looks bad, the likely outcomes are even worse: harsh military rule or the ascension to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks a society based on strict sharia law and sees itself in a long-term jihad against the West. The prospects for replacing the current authoritarian regime with liberal democracy is, in my opinion, minimal in a land that has never known democracy in it 6,000-year history and where the current regime has done little, if anything, to allow democratic opposition to grow — and in the process left the people only with radical Islam as an outlet for protest.

Anyway, in reading online I’ve come across some articles to pass along, the first from the aforementioned Mr. Ledeen, who’s always worth following: Revolution? By Whom? For What?

And what about us?  We are supposed to be the revolutionaries, and we must support democratic revolution against tyranny.  But we must not support phony democrats, and for the president to say “Egypt’s destiny will be determined by the Egyptian people,” or “everyone wants to be free” is silly and dangerous.  Egypt’s destiny will be determined by a fight among Egyptian people, some of whom wish to be free and others who wish to install a tyranny worse than Mubarak’s.  That’s the opposite of freedom.  Think about the free elections in Gaza that brought the Hamas killers to power.  For that matter, think about Khomeini, viewed at the time as a progressive democrat by many of the leading intellectual and political lights of the West, from Foucault to Andrew Young.

We should have been pressuring the friendly tyrants in the Middle East to liberalize their polities lo these many years.  We should have done it in the shah’s Iran, and in Mubarak’s Egypt, and in Ben Ali’s Tunisia.  It is possible to move peacefully from dictatorship to democracy (think Taiwan.  Think Chile.  Think South Africa).  But we didn’t, in part because of the racist stereotype that goes under the label “the Arab street,” according to which the Arab masses are motivated above all by an unrelenting rage at Israel for its oppression of the beloved Palestinians.  That myth went along with another:  the belief that the culture of the Arab world (sometimes expanded to “the culture of the Muslim world”) was totally resistant to democracy.  The tumult has nothing to do with Palestine/Israel and even a blind bat can see hundreds of thousands of Arabs fighting for democracy, as have their fellow Muslims in Iran.

We shoulda, coulda done better all along.  But here we are.  It’s quite clear that Obama is totally bamboozled.

The United States has huge stakes in Egypt and the region, but I fear our ability to influence events is limited by our lack of knowledge and by, quite simply, the fact that revolutions, once ignited, are almost impossible to direct. The winners are not always the largest force, but usually the most organized and disciplined, such as the Bolsheviks in 1917.

And speaking of disciplined forces, former UN Ambasssador John Bolton sees the situation becoming more dangerous, as the Muslim Brotherhood has become openly involved and the military wonders about its own survival:

I think after the Friday prayers the Brotherhood brought its people out. That’s why the protests are even more extensive today. That constitutes no doubt about it a direct threat to the military government, and I think the failure of the other security forces to bring the demonstrations under control also now explains the presence of the military.

Let me be clear here, this is not just the Mubarak-family government. The military has ruled Egypt since Gamal Nasser and they overthrew King Farook.

It’s the military that is the real government and they are not going to go peacefully.

I think the question is whether and to what extent the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists have infiltrated the leadership. If the military holds firm it’s entirely possible, although bloody, that the government can hold onto power. That doesn’t necessarily mean Mubarak will be in power, but the military will be, and I think that is why this contrast makes it so important for people to understand, this is not a choice between the Mubarak government on one hand, and sweetness and light, Jeffersonian democracy on the other.

I don’t think we have evidence yet that these demonstrations are necessarily about democracy. You know the old saying, “one person, one vote, one time.” The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t care about democracy, if they get into power you’re not going to have free and fair elections either.

He also brings up the parlous situation of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority, who constitute roughly ten percent of the population and suffer regular persecution and pogroms. You can bet they’re terrified of the possibility of a Brotherhood-dominated government or a more nakedly military government that needs a convenient scapegoat to deflect the Islamists.

And the Brotherhood may be calling in markers, as its offshoot Hamas appears to be coming to its aid:

The Egyptian police are no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Hamas armed men are entering into Egypt and are closely collaborating with the MB. The MB has fully engaged itself in the demonstrations, and they are unsatisfied with the dismissal of the Cabinet. They are insisting on a new Cabinet that does not include members of the ruling National Democratic Party.

(via Power Line)

Only a fool (Or a TV talking head) pretends to be able to predict with certainty what will happen in Egypt, but Andrew Bostom reminds us of a University of Maryland survey showing that a disturbingly large number of Egyptians want a sharia-ruled state:

In a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/  WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 1000 Egyptian Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007, 67% of those interviewed-more than 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”). The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 74% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict (…) application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

See also Michael Totten’s recent blog entry talking about other worrisome data points of Egyptian public opinion. Like Michael, I fear that Egyptians may just get what they wish, only to very much regret it later — like the Iranians in 1979.

LINKS: Obama adviser Bruce Riedel tells us we shouldn’t worry about the Muslim Brotherhood;  Bruce Riedel is also a fool. At Big Peace, journalist Caroline Glick has a must-read article on Egypt and the Pragmatic Fantasy, while former Muslim Nonie Darwish calls Egypt’s situation a choice between bad and worse. At Threat Matrix, Thomas Joscelyn examines the longstanding ties between the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and the Shiite mullahs of  Iran.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Domino falling?

January 25, 2011

Major anti-government demonstrations have broken out in Egypt against the 80-something dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

I’m no fan of Mubarak, but the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood possibly seizing power there does not fill me with joy.

Far from it.


Cultural Jihad: the Massachusetts mega-mosque

June 15, 2010

PJTV’s Bill Whittle interviews Charles Jacobs of Boston over the controversial mosque built in the Boston suburb of Roxbury:

Jacob’s brings up a good point that I’ve seen elsewhere, such as in the writings of Robert Spencer: the mosque isn’t just a place of worship, but a symbol of conquest.

RELATED: Pat Condell with words of advice for us about the Ground Zero mega-mosque.


The theology of genocide

May 14, 2010

A couple of days ago, I commented on the UC San Diego student, a member of the Muslim Students Association (which itself is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood), who publicly stated her support for another Holocaust against the Jews.

In response to the inevitable question, “How in the name of all that’s decent can she make such a statement,” Robert Spencer, a noted scholar of Islam, explains how the roots of Ms. Albahri’s murderous antisemitism is grounded in the core works of Islam itself: Theology for a Holocaust

None of this should come as any surprise. The genocidal hadith [Sahih Muslim 6985 --Phineas] quoted on Palestinian TV is just one element of an anti-Semitism that is deeply rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and which runs through Islamic history with a remarkable consistency. The Qur’an portrays the Jews as the craftiest, most persistent, and most implacable enemies of the Muslims. Three notorious Qur’anic passages depict an angry Allah transforming Jews into apes and pigs: 2:63–66; 5:59–60; and 7:166. The first of those passages depicts Allah telling the Jews who “profaned the Sabbath”: “Be as apes despicable!” It goes on to say that these accursed ones serve “as a warning example for their time and for all times to come.” The second has Allah directing Muhammad to remind the “People of the Book” about “those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil.” The third essentially repeats this, saying of the Sabbath-breaking Jews that when “in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions,” Allah said to them, “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

In traditional Islamic theology these passages have not been considered to apply to all Jews. However, that hasn’t stopped contemporary jihadists from frequently referring to Jews as the “descendants of apes and swine.” The implication is that today’s Jews are bestial in character and are the enemies of Allah, just as the Sabbath-breakers were. The grand sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the most respected cleric in the world among Sunni Muslims today, has called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” Saudi sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, said in a sermon that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.”

Another Saudi sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: “The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places … is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam—which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.” A 1996 Hamas publication says that today’s Jews are bestial in spirit, and this is a manifestation of the punishment of their forefathers. In January 2007, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas stated, “The sons of Israel are mentioned as those who are corrupting humanity on earth,” referring to Qur’an 5:64.

It information such as this that our government (and others) willfully ignores when dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute and the threat from Islamic terrorism. Trading land for peace and clinging to illusory “root causes” makes no sense -in fact, it’s downright dangerous- when dealing with a foe who believes he is fighting for a holy cause. Any concession or act of good faith is seen as weakness on our part and a proof of the righteousness of their struggle.

Be sure to read the whole thing. Of Spencer’s books, I most recommend “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion” and “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran.”

(Cross-posted at Sister Toldjah, where I’m guest-hosting for the day)


At least she’s honest

May 11, 2010

During an exchange in a question and answer period with right-wing activist David Horowitz at UC San Diego, a member of the Muslim Students Association admits she is in favor of another Holocaust.

But don’t say it isn’t a religion of tolerance.

(via Allahpundit)

UPDATE: And this antisemitic genocidal imperative is hardwired into Islam. From the the Sahih Muslim, one of the most authoritative collections of ahadith, the sayings and deeds of Muhammad:

Book 041, Number 6985:

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

The young lady at UC San Diego was just following tradition.

(via)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,180 other followers