Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America
I doubt that this is receiving much main stream media attention, but the Muslim Brotherhood this year officially endorsed jihad against America.
Courtesy of erudito (http://erudito.livejournal.com/950372.html) referencing "Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America" (http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/10/muslim-brotherhood-declares-war-on-america) by Barry Rubin in the GLORIA Center, referencing http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4650.htm from MEMRI.
To quote the MEMRI translation of the sermon by Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi' in early October 2010:
Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it.
And lest you think that this is merely an endorsement of some sort of spiritual struggle "jihad lite," Badi' earlier says explicitly:
Today the Muslims desperately need a mentality of honor and means of power [that will enable them] to confront global Zionism. [This movement] knows nothing but the language of force, so [the Muslims] must meet iron with iron, and winds with [even more powerful] storms. They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.
Note the assumption that America (and indeed the whole West) is merely a tool and expression of "international Zionism." Muhammed Badi' is not merely urging war against Israel, as those who hope that we can simply cut loose part of the West and throw it to the dogs by way of appeasement might believe, he is urging war against the whole of the West.
As Rubin points out:
Since the Brotherhood is the main opposition force in Egypt and Jordan as well as the most powerful group, both politically and religiously, in the Muslim communities of Europe and North America this is pretty serious stuff.
If you haven't heard of the Brotherhood in the United States of America, think "CAIR." They're the political front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood here, the ones who are constantly protesting and suing every time Americans exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize Islam. The Brotherhood has other front organizations in the US -- here, from Big Peace using the Muslim Brotherhood's own Explanatory Memorandum as a source, is a partial list of them:
• Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
• Muslim Student Association (MSA)
• The Muslim Communities Association (MCA)
• The Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS)
• The Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE)
• Islamic Medical Association (IMA)
• Islamic Teaching Center (ITC)
• North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)
• Foundation for International Development (FID)
• Islamic Housing Cooperative (IHC)
• Islamic Centers Division (ICD)
• American Trust Publications (ATP)
• Audio-Visual Center (AVC)
• Islamic Book Service (IBS)
• Muslim Businessmen Association (MBA)
• Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA)
• ISNA Fiqh Committee (IFC)
• ISNA Political Awareness Committee (IPAC)
• Islamic Education Department (IED)
• Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA)
• Malasian (sic) Islamic Study Group (MISG)
• Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)
• United Association for Studies and Research (UASR)
• Occupied Land Fund (OLF)
• Mercy International Association (MIA)
• Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)
• Baitul Mal Inc (BMI)
• International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT)
• Islamic Information Center (IIC)
And, as Rubin points out in the GLORIA Center article:
By the way, no one can argue that he merely represents old, tired policies of the distant past because the supreme guide who said these things was elected just a few months ago. His position reflects current thinking.
In other words, the Brotherhood is shifting toward greater radicalism. Or at least more open radicalism -- I'd argue that they've held these beliefs all along, but are now due to the lack of a real American President in office judging it safer to act upon them.
Does that mean the Egyptian, Jordanian, and all the camouflaged Muslim Brotherhood fronts in Europe and North America are going to launch terrorism as one of their affiliates, Hamas, has long done? No.
Actually, it could mean that, but I suspect that the Brotherhood finds its front organizations too valuable uncompromised (which they would not be in an open-jihad situation) to risk losing them. But we could get lucky -- they might just scream and leap. The Muslims have done so before.
But it does mean that something awaited for decades has happened: the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to move from the era of propaganda and base-building to one of revolutionary action. At least, its hundreds of thousands of followers are being given that signal. Some of them will engage in terrorist violence as individuals or forming splinter groups; others will redouble their efforts to seize control of their countries and turn them into safe areas for terrorists and instruments for war on the West.
Remember that, even though the Western MSM pays no attention to Muhammed Badi', because his announcements do not "support their narrative," as the kind of mind-dead people who are deliberately postmodern would say, the actual Islamist radicals pay close attention to his words. From the Brotherhood's point of view, the more tenuous the chain of command, the more deniable and the better: any acts of violence, spontaneous or otherwise, by mujehadeen against the West suits their purpose.
Also remember that, outside America and even more so in the Muslim world itself, the Islamists are more significant as an armed and violent body. It is unlikely that America or even Europe will fall to the Islamists anytime soon: Egypt or Pakistan, on the other hand, may be on the brink of Islamic revolutions.
And, even where we live
The Brotherhood is the group that often dominates Muslim communities in the West and runs mosques. Its cadre control front groups that are often recognized by Western democratic governments and media as authoritative. Government officials in many countries meet with these groups, ask them to be advisers for counter-terrorist strategies and national policies, and even fund them.
Note particularly the last line. Because our own official communities persist in regarding the Muslim Brotherhood's front organizations as legitimate and even "moderate," the Brotherhood is uniquely positioned to blind us to our own peril, and use our own governments to help suppress our own normal defensive reactions against Islamism. This has been particularly the case in Europe, but it's been happening in America as well, though here it is restrained by the First Amendment.
President Barack Obama speaks about a conflict limited solely to al-Qaida. And if one is talking about the current military battle in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen that point makes sense. Yet there is a far bigger and wider battle going on in which revolutionary Islamists seek to overthrow their own rulers and wage long-term, full-scale struggle against the West. If it doesn't involve violence right now it will when they get strong enough or gain power.
Consider this. Every country seized by the Brotherhood may be another country we have to, at some future date, conquer, occupy and reconstruct. Or destroy, if the fighting gets really nasty -- as it could if a Muslim-controlled nuclear weapon or two went off in a Great Power's cities.
In the real world, of course, the Islamists are unlikely to win over the long run of, say, 50 or100 years. But those views do mean that these 50 or 100 years are going to be filled with instability and bloodshed.
Exactly. The Islamists do not and probably never will have the power to conquer the world. But what they cannot conquer, they can mar, or possibly (if they get their hands on enough WMD) annihilate.
Rubin then comes to some conclusions:
First, the more the likelihood that U.S. policy might obtains a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the more anti-American violent activity will be sparked among the Islamists and their very large base of support, the more Iran and Syria will sponsor terrorism. Desirable as peace or even progress toward peace might be, the West should have no illusions about those things providing regional stability, and they will produce more instability.
This follows from the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood wants Israel to be wiped from the map, not merely able to live at peace with her Arab neighbors. Fortunately, peace between Israel and the Palestinians appears improbable: but is is foolish of us to be trying, since that commits us to a hopeless cause (peace with the Palestinians), creates friction with an ally (Israel) and tempts terrorists to attack us to influence our policy.
Second, U.S. actions of apology, concessions, and withdrawals - whether or not any of the specific steps are useful or desirable - they are interpreted by the Islamists and by many in the Middle East as signs of weakness which should spark further aggression and violence.
This sentence should be hung in every office of the US State Department. It is the key point that Carter never grasped, and that Obama makes a point of pride not to grasp: in the Mideast, backing down is seen as a sign of weakness, even if the other side had the right of it. Which, actually, they don't.
Most important of all, however, Badi and many others sense weakness on the part of the West, especially the U.S. leaders, and victory for the Islamists.
"Enemy in retreat, advance."
Oh, and thank you, Obama, for all the hoped-for change.
Rubin concludes by saying:
In August 1996, al-Qaida declared war on America, the West, Christians and Jews. Nobody important paid much attention to this. Almost exactly five years later, September 11 forced them to notice. Let it be said that in September 2010 the Muslim Brotherhood, a group with one hundred times more activists than al-Qaida, issued its declaration of war. What remains is the history of the future.
Precisely. What's started here is bound to end in large-scale war, unless we start acting soon. We need to identify the Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and start shutting them down, arresting or deporting their leadership and as many members as we can identify and find evidence against.
In short, we need to take the threat seriously.
Unfortunately, we won't have a President capable of doing so for two more years, and there's no guarantee that we'll get one who does so even if the Republicans win.
If Obama wins in 2012, of course, we're in really deep crap.
Courtesy of erudito (http://erudito.livejournal.com/950372.html) referencing "Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America" (http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/10/muslim-brotherhood-declares-war-on-america) by Barry Rubin in the GLORIA Center, referencing http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4650.htm from MEMRI.
To quote the MEMRI translation of the sermon by Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi' in early October 2010:
Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it.
And lest you think that this is merely an endorsement of some sort of spiritual struggle "jihad lite," Badi' earlier says explicitly:
Today the Muslims desperately need a mentality of honor and means of power [that will enable them] to confront global Zionism. [This movement] knows nothing but the language of force, so [the Muslims] must meet iron with iron, and winds with [even more powerful] storms. They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.
Note the assumption that America (and indeed the whole West) is merely a tool and expression of "international Zionism." Muhammed Badi' is not merely urging war against Israel, as those who hope that we can simply cut loose part of the West and throw it to the dogs by way of appeasement might believe, he is urging war against the whole of the West.
As Rubin points out:
Since the Brotherhood is the main opposition force in Egypt and Jordan as well as the most powerful group, both politically and religiously, in the Muslim communities of Europe and North America this is pretty serious stuff.
If you haven't heard of the Brotherhood in the United States of America, think "CAIR." They're the political front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood here, the ones who are constantly protesting and suing every time Americans exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize Islam. The Brotherhood has other front organizations in the US -- here, from Big Peace using the Muslim Brotherhood's own Explanatory Memorandum as a source, is a partial list of them:
• Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
• Muslim Student Association (MSA)
• The Muslim Communities Association (MCA)
• The Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS)
• The Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE)
• Islamic Medical Association (IMA)
• Islamic Teaching Center (ITC)
• North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)
• Foundation for International Development (FID)
• Islamic Housing Cooperative (IHC)
• Islamic Centers Division (ICD)
• American Trust Publications (ATP)
• Audio-Visual Center (AVC)
• Islamic Book Service (IBS)
• Muslim Businessmen Association (MBA)
• Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA)
• ISNA Fiqh Committee (IFC)
• ISNA Political Awareness Committee (IPAC)
• Islamic Education Department (IED)
• Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA)
• Malasian (sic) Islamic Study Group (MISG)
• Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)
• United Association for Studies and Research (UASR)
• Occupied Land Fund (OLF)
• Mercy International Association (MIA)
• Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)
• Baitul Mal Inc (BMI)
• International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT)
• Islamic Information Center (IIC)
And, as Rubin points out in the GLORIA Center article:
By the way, no one can argue that he merely represents old, tired policies of the distant past because the supreme guide who said these things was elected just a few months ago. His position reflects current thinking.
In other words, the Brotherhood is shifting toward greater radicalism. Or at least more open radicalism -- I'd argue that they've held these beliefs all along, but are now due to the lack of a real American President in office judging it safer to act upon them.
Does that mean the Egyptian, Jordanian, and all the camouflaged Muslim Brotherhood fronts in Europe and North America are going to launch terrorism as one of their affiliates, Hamas, has long done? No.
Actually, it could mean that, but I suspect that the Brotherhood finds its front organizations too valuable uncompromised (which they would not be in an open-jihad situation) to risk losing them. But we could get lucky -- they might just scream and leap. The Muslims have done so before.
But it does mean that something awaited for decades has happened: the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to move from the era of propaganda and base-building to one of revolutionary action. At least, its hundreds of thousands of followers are being given that signal. Some of them will engage in terrorist violence as individuals or forming splinter groups; others will redouble their efforts to seize control of their countries and turn them into safe areas for terrorists and instruments for war on the West.
Remember that, even though the Western MSM pays no attention to Muhammed Badi', because his announcements do not "support their narrative," as the kind of mind-dead people who are deliberately postmodern would say, the actual Islamist radicals pay close attention to his words. From the Brotherhood's point of view, the more tenuous the chain of command, the more deniable and the better: any acts of violence, spontaneous or otherwise, by mujehadeen against the West suits their purpose.
Also remember that, outside America and even more so in the Muslim world itself, the Islamists are more significant as an armed and violent body. It is unlikely that America or even Europe will fall to the Islamists anytime soon: Egypt or Pakistan, on the other hand, may be on the brink of Islamic revolutions.
And, even where we live
The Brotherhood is the group that often dominates Muslim communities in the West and runs mosques. Its cadre control front groups that are often recognized by Western democratic governments and media as authoritative. Government officials in many countries meet with these groups, ask them to be advisers for counter-terrorist strategies and national policies, and even fund them.
Note particularly the last line. Because our own official communities persist in regarding the Muslim Brotherhood's front organizations as legitimate and even "moderate," the Brotherhood is uniquely positioned to blind us to our own peril, and use our own governments to help suppress our own normal defensive reactions against Islamism. This has been particularly the case in Europe, but it's been happening in America as well, though here it is restrained by the First Amendment.
President Barack Obama speaks about a conflict limited solely to al-Qaida. And if one is talking about the current military battle in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen that point makes sense. Yet there is a far bigger and wider battle going on in which revolutionary Islamists seek to overthrow their own rulers and wage long-term, full-scale struggle against the West. If it doesn't involve violence right now it will when they get strong enough or gain power.
Consider this. Every country seized by the Brotherhood may be another country we have to, at some future date, conquer, occupy and reconstruct. Or destroy, if the fighting gets really nasty -- as it could if a Muslim-controlled nuclear weapon or two went off in a Great Power's cities.
In the real world, of course, the Islamists are unlikely to win over the long run of, say, 50 or100 years. But those views do mean that these 50 or 100 years are going to be filled with instability and bloodshed.
Exactly. The Islamists do not and probably never will have the power to conquer the world. But what they cannot conquer, they can mar, or possibly (if they get their hands on enough WMD) annihilate.
Rubin then comes to some conclusions:
First, the more the likelihood that U.S. policy might obtains a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the more anti-American violent activity will be sparked among the Islamists and their very large base of support, the more Iran and Syria will sponsor terrorism. Desirable as peace or even progress toward peace might be, the West should have no illusions about those things providing regional stability, and they will produce more instability.
This follows from the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood wants Israel to be wiped from the map, not merely able to live at peace with her Arab neighbors. Fortunately, peace between Israel and the Palestinians appears improbable: but is is foolish of us to be trying, since that commits us to a hopeless cause (peace with the Palestinians), creates friction with an ally (Israel) and tempts terrorists to attack us to influence our policy.
Second, U.S. actions of apology, concessions, and withdrawals - whether or not any of the specific steps are useful or desirable - they are interpreted by the Islamists and by many in the Middle East as signs of weakness which should spark further aggression and violence.
This sentence should be hung in every office of the US State Department. It is the key point that Carter never grasped, and that Obama makes a point of pride not to grasp: in the Mideast, backing down is seen as a sign of weakness, even if the other side had the right of it. Which, actually, they don't.
Most important of all, however, Badi and many others sense weakness on the part of the West, especially the U.S. leaders, and victory for the Islamists.
"Enemy in retreat, advance."
Oh, and thank you, Obama, for all the hoped-for change.
Rubin concludes by saying:
In August 1996, al-Qaida declared war on America, the West, Christians and Jews. Nobody important paid much attention to this. Almost exactly five years later, September 11 forced them to notice. Let it be said that in September 2010 the Muslim Brotherhood, a group with one hundred times more activists than al-Qaida, issued its declaration of war. What remains is the history of the future.
Precisely. What's started here is bound to end in large-scale war, unless we start acting soon. We need to identify the Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and start shutting them down, arresting or deporting their leadership and as many members as we can identify and find evidence against.
In short, we need to take the threat seriously.
Unfortunately, we won't have a President capable of doing so for two more years, and there's no guarantee that we'll get one who does so even if the Republicans win.
If Obama wins in 2012, of course, we're in really deep crap.