While the regime of Egyptian President Mubarak has been oppressive to say the least, the group that appears to be waiting in the wings to take control is no better and likely worse. Every indication points to an even more stringent government under the control of Islamic extremists.
The Muslim Brotherhood is an integral part of the group that is quick to push Mubarak out the door. While citizens have every right to rebel against oppression, as is so often the case with Middle Eastern nations the demise of a moderating influence provides the impetus for ushering in an even more oppressive regime controlled by individuals who wish to implement Sharia Law and advocate for the Jihad.
Egypt is thus under siege, not primarily from impoverished citizens who wish to be free but from ominous forces that take advantage of their plight for subversive political and religious ends.
Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood must be thoroughly vetted before a prudent course can be charted by the U.S.
A quick look at the history of the organization, along with its stated goals, will reveal a frightening scenario.
The group was founded in 1928 by Egyptian activist Hasan al-Banna and quickly grew into one of the most influential Muslim organizations in the world.
Robert Spencer, an expert on Islam, stated that the Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of the terrorist groups Hamas and Al Qaeda.
According to a study of the group by Discover the Networks,
The Brotherhood was founded in accordance with al-Banna’s proclamation that Islam be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Accordingly, the Brotherhood seeks to establish an Islamic Caliphate spanning the entire Muslim world. It also aspires to make Islamic (Shari’a) law the sole basis of jurisprudence and governance. Toward this purpose -- encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s militant credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations” -- the Brotherhood since its founding has supported the use of armed struggle, or jihad. The Brotherhood supports the waging of jihad against non-Muslim “infidels,” and has expressed support for terrorism against Israel, whose legitimacy the Brotherhood does not recognize, and against the West, particularly the United States.
Originally the Brotherhood was an underground organization in Egypt, gradually gaining recognition as a force with which to be contended during the 40s and early 50s. But in 1954, the group was outlawed, leading to a waning of the Brotherhood's influence.
That influence, however, began to increase again with the advent of the growing power of Anwar Sadat, who at the time was a Brotherhood sympathizer. But when Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel in the late 70s, the Brotherhood turned against the Egyptian president, believing that he had betrayed Islam. Some believe that the Brotherhood played a key role in the assassination of Sadat in 1981.
In recent years the Muslim Brotherhood has attempted to improve its image in the world by portraying itself as a 'moderate' Muslim group. However, its actions and statements belie that claim.
For example,
Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, has repeatedly disavowed violence while concurrently pledging his support for the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah. Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef, a prominent leader of the Brotherhood, has expressed his support for suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq "in order to expel the Zionists and the Americans." He has also denounced the United States as a “Satan,” saying: “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.” Many other leaders of the Brotherhood have likewise justified terrorism against Israel and the United States, with many defending the September 11 terrorist attacks against America. Jews are another common object of the Brotherhood’s hatred. Of the Jewish people, Sheik Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood, has written: “There is no dialogue between them and us other than in one language -- the language of the sword and force.” (via Discover the Networks).
In addition, in 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood issued its 'General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,' which called for a 'stable Islamic movement on the continent' that would be accomplished through 'the Civilization-Jihad Process.' That process would result in the elimination of Western culture and influence from within and 'sabotaging its miserable house' so that 'God's religion' (Islam) would be victorious over all other religions.
Thus, the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is intricately involved in forming a new government in Egypt is no comfort to those who promote human liberty or who work toward a stabilizing influence in the Middle East.
Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.
Subscribe by clicking the subscribe box beside my picture at the top of the page, or below, and an email will be sent to your inbox each time a new article is published.
Comments
It might now be time to read the Bible, and specifically certain prophecies that remain to be fulfilled. I recommend Ezekiel chh. 38-39 to start with.
Terry, excellent point. Those who wish to make deals with the Devil in the name of 'peace in the Middle East' are actually aiding and abetting evil. There will never be peace in that region due to the diametrically opposed spiritual/ideological divide that will only be resolved with the culmination of history as we know it.
So, you're saying that Israel is going to attack its neighbors without provocation, and then all the nations of the Earth are going to invade Israel with a lot of horses, and then Israel's army is going to kill them all and use the wood from their bows and shields as firewood for seven years.
I'm not seeing this as too likely. Also you might want to be aware that Ezekiel was written during the Captivity in Babylon, and is generally regarded as events fulfilled by the later return from exile and establishment of a semi-independent Yehud Medinata under the Persian empire.
I can't believe you actually wrote that piece of trash, Jack-Sh*t. You don't even know history, or if you do, you deliberately distort it. You have the gall to say Israel invaded neighbors 'without being provoked.' Bullsh*t. They have been attacked over and over from peole right under their noses who want to kill them. Those areas were invaded so they could protect themselves, you lying scumbag.
What kind of a human being ARE you, anyway? Nobody I have any respect for.
Croak:
You might want to read Ezekiel. It's quite explicit that in the prophecy, Israel is attacking peaceful ("unwalled") villages.
Agreed
One does not vett Muslim....the word is taqiyya. Jim and Examiner.
It seems like you rather openly acknowledge that you lack knowledge of this subject, and the basis for your judgment in this case seems to be a believe that Arabs are fundamentally incapable of democracy and inherently evil; as you put it,
"There will never be peace in that region due to the diametrically opposed spiritual/ideological divide that will only be resolved with the culmination of history as we know it."
So it seems that in fact you are yourself no less of a religious radical than the people you complain about, and no more worth taking seriously.
Arabs aren't fundamentally incapable of democracy but Islam (Sharia) is incompatible with democracy.
This 'Jack' fella knows jack-sh*t. How can anybody take seriously some pompous know-it-all who supports people who believe in imposing their religious views on the whole damn world? And I don't see anything in this article that remotely mentions 'Arabs.' I do see quite a bit about an extremist religious belief that the Islam system must have the victory over all other religions, force people to live under their laws in the Koran, and treat non-Muslims like 2nd class folk.
Tellme, Mr Jack-Sh*t, do you believe Jews have a right to live in the Middle East, or is the whole damn area the possession of your precious Muslims? And don't give me the bullsh*t about them having one tiny little strip of land in a vast ocean full of Muslims who surround them and want them all dead.
You are a sorry-as'ed human being. Take that to your pipe and smoke it,.
Supporting the right of a people to democratic representation doesn't mean supporting the aspirations of some to repress the religious (or other) rights of minority groups.
Not that there is any effort to attack the rights of Copts or other religious minorities in Egypt at the moment, but if the Muslim Brotherhood or other organizations attempt such, they ought to be condemned for doing so.
This has nothing to do with supporting the Egyptian peoples' calls for democracy, however. And trying to play the victim card while supporting the oppression of eight million people- Muslims, Christians and others included- is pathetic.
In 1945 there had never been a Jewish or, for that matter, Hindu or Shinto or Buddhist majority democracy. In fact before 1776 there had never been an English republic in the modern sense.
These are terrible arguments for saying that when people aspire to democracy, we shouldn't support them.
If these is an attempt to impose religious laws on the entire country, of course, we shouldn't support that; but cheering on a dictator that's friendly to us because we claim that the alternative might lead to an unfriendly dictator down the road is obscene self-interest, no matter how you try to masquerade it as anything moral.
I can't find any source to the stoned to death or killing apostates claims; they're certainly not in the Pew study.
I should say that there's some confusion here, also, as when you say that 95% of Egyptians want an "Islamic influece" in Egyptian politics, which by the way also isn't in the Pew poll.
The most obvious flaw here is that 10% of Egyptians are Coptic Christians, so if this poll were accurate, at least half of the Christians would have to support this view.
The larger question is to ask: So what?
Of course a country with a large Muslim majority is going to want Islamic influence in their political system. Just like Christians that make up a majority of the population in America want Christianity to influence politics, and Jews in Israel want Judaism to influence their politics.
But you can't compare the idea of Muslim influence in politics- inevitable in a Muslim majority country- with Islamist sharia law, in which the Islamic influence is both supreme and exclusive of other influences. That would be the distinction between theocracy and a democracy that happens to be made up mainly of people of a given religion.
Also, there's been notorious inconsistency and difficulty in tracking Egyptian popular opinion;
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Likely this is explained not only by the fact that it's difficult to honestly poll authoritarian regimes, but also by the youth and relative instability of Egyptian society. All the more reason to make a good impression, rather than making sure that young Egyptians remember America as the nation that's nurtured their tormentors.
Bailey has previously been shown to have studied the false translations put out by the fanatic Islamophobes - translations debunked by scholars with no particular love of Islam but a preference for truth.
he crawls out of his bunker periodically when he runs out of coffee, fires off a few rants and then runs back to hide.
1) Your Pew poll didn't show the things you claimed it showed. I mean this isn't a secret. Anyone can go look it up. http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/268.pdf
You still haven't sourced half these claims. And I don't say that the Pew poll isn't fully reliable because I'm casting aspersions on the organization; everyone in the polling business knows that a single cluster poll isn't going to give you the complete picture.
2) I'm not sure what you think a Muslim apologist is. I don't apologize for Muslims being Muslim. I'm not supportive of organized religion in general, although I think that people's beliefs deserve a certain amount of respect.
If you mean by that that I pretend that the Koran doesn't contain a lot of violent and regressive ideas, well, no, I don't. So does the Bible. Yet we don't live under Biblical law, thankfully, as the author here should've realized before he started using Ezekiel as a source for modern events.
3) I'm not sure what your argument is here. There currently aren't any Arabic republics- and I guess you could argue that, although Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan aren't so clear cut- so when Arabic people try to form one, it should be crushed?
That's a prima facie nonsensical argument. Something hasn't existed so it will never exist; well by that argument nothing new should ever be invented or said or even done. That's a terrible argument for supporting an illegitimate and oppressive regime.
Jack,
I admire your attempt to use reason to dispute Bailey's cartoonish commentary. But you are wasting your time.
Mr Bailey is a devout "biblical christian" and bigot. He is certainly entitled to believe whatever he wishes, but the whole concept that the united states is partly founded on the idea of freedom of religion for individuals, and no official state religion seems to escape his grasp.
He also believes that EVERYONE who does not believe in his rather narrow minded view of things is either evil or a sinner. Basically, if you aren't a white, far right american, "biblical christian", you will spend eternity with a pitchfork in your butt
In other words, he is a fanatic. A harmless fanatic, but a fanatic none-the-less.
Much like all fanatics, he either distorts facts, presents opinions as fact, or just flat out makes things up. You really should read some of his blogs. As disturbing as it is to know that an adult human being can have such stunted reasoning power, it is good comedy.
And the fact that no one seems to agree with much of anything he says gives me at least some faith in people.
While I disagree with Mr. Elgin I applaud his calm and reasoned rebuttals. As to "UpeopleRmorons", I suggest you change your moniker to "IAmAMoron". You must be if you continue to read Mr. Bailey's commentary after professing how cartoonish it is. Does it make you feel superior to bash someone for his/her beliefs? Are we supposed to march in lockstep to your side's dogma? I am sick to death of people such as yourself. I am an independent minded person. I embrace all schools of thought. Whether I agree or disagree with someone, I still respect their right to their belief.
Sadly, you and your fellow spawn do not.
Oh cherryl, yes i am superior to bailey. So is pretty much everyone else. Except for you maybe.
Tell me cherryl, are you a hypocrite or just plain dumb? How is it that your"open mind" allows you to support the irrational muslim hating, gay bashing, bible thumping, holier-than-thou james russell bailey?
How is it that your open mind allows you to respect baileys condemnation ofpeople of every race, religion, and creed on this planet, yet get so offended when lil old me pokes fun at the idiocy of one very small man?
Sadly the answer is obvious. Only bailey-cakes himself can write something so incredibly off point and illogical. The monkier "sierracherryl" just proves what i already know about bailey. He spends his free time dressed as a woman.
Oh, and as for why i bother to address the cartoonish idiocy of bailey? Simple
Partly because the one thing that drivs me insane is 2+2=5 "logic".
The other being Jerry had Tom to torment. The joker had batman. I have james russell bailey. The man's idiocy just makes me smile.
I hate brown people.
I love my Black slaves (Abeeds).
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!