| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi, a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Here (thanks to Sr. Soph) he takes on and demolishes utterly the Robert Leiken/Steven Brooke contention that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, democratic organization with which the U.S. can and should deal.
There is a great deal to his argument -- read it all. Here is a sample. He quotes Leiken and Brooke saying this:
The Muslim Brotherhood is a collection of national groups with differing outlooks, and the various factions disagree about how best to advance its mission. But all reject global jihad while embracing elections and other features of democracy....The [Muslim Brotherhood] followed the path of toleration and eventually came to find democracy compatible with its notion of slow Islamization.
All reject global jihad? Leiken and Brooke just don't realize that "slow Islamization" is just a different method of arriving at the same goal. And Halevi notes:
However, according to the Muslim Brotherhood, jihad, that is, holy war against the infidels, is one of the fundamental elements spread by the Muslim Brotherhood. The organization's ideology, as it appears on its official website, regards "the prophet Muhammad as its leader and ruler, and jihad as its path."17 Jihad has a global strategy beyond self-defense, it is the unceasing attack on every infidel rule, intended to widen the borders of the Islamic state until all mankind lives under the Islamic flag.Clicking the links "The Goals of the Muslim Brotherhood" and "Muslim Brotherhood Measures" leads to explanations of jihad based on the writings of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. Jihad, it is noted, is Islam's most important tool in effecting a gradual takeover, beginning with the Muslim countries, moving on to reestablishing the Caliphate over three continents in preparation for a conquest of the West, and finally instituting a global Islamic state. The following are quotations from the organization's website:
We want a Muslim individual, a Muslim home, a Muslim people, a Muslim government and state that will lead the Islamic countries and bring into the fold the Muslim Diaspora and the lands robbed from Islam and will then bear the standard of jihad and the call [da'wah] to Allah. [Then the] world will happily accept the precepts of Islam....The problems of conquering the world will only end when the flag of Islam waves and jihad has been proclaimed.18The goal is to establish one Islamic state of united Islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of Allah...and the strengthening of the Islamic presence in the world arena....The goal...is the establishment of a world Islamic state.19
And if prayer is a pillar of the faith, then jihad is its summit...and death in the path of Allah is the summit of aspiration.20
From Halevi's conclusion:
The thesis presented by Leiken and Brooke was inspired by impressions received during conversations with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose names are not mentioned and who are quoted neither fully nor accurately. It is clear that both Leiken and Brooke were duped by the ambiguity of their interlocutors' rhetoric, which was tailored for Western ears and meant to lull suspicions and hide genuine intentions. Leiken and Brooke were deeply impressed by the support given by the Muslim Brotherhood for "democracy," but they failed to understand that for the Muslim Brotherhood and the West, the word has two completely different meanings. As far as the Muslim Brotherhood is concerned, Islamic rule expresses "true democracy," and that is the only kind to which they are committed.The Muslim Brotherhood poses a serious threat to the West. It hides behind ambiguous terminology, which makes the organization appear moderate and enables it to operate freely in its host countries, thereby establishing a convenient base from which to disseminate radical Islamic ideology among the growing Muslim communities. Once that has been achieved, demography and radically-minded public opinion will enable the Muslim Brotherhood to take over a government by "democratic" means. That will signal the last day of Western democracy in that country and the installation of an Islamic government, whose objective will be to export radical Islamic rule to other countries, the next step in realizing the vision of a world Caliphate. In Europe the sand is running out, and a showdown with the Muslim Brotherhood is closer than anyone suspects. However, to a certain extent, the focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict delays the realization of Islamic aspirations in Western Europe.
Don't fail to read it all.
Posted by Robert at November 13, 2007 8:37 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
We can't take too many more of these newly-arrived and arriviste dopes who have become sudden scholars on Islam -- Leiken et al., who have started pontificating gravely about Islam because that's where the government and grant money now is, and their bluff is so infrequently called, because so many are in the same foreign-policy analysis racket. (All you have to do is read the papers, apparently -- that's something we can all do, by the tens of millions).
No, we don't need any new dopes. We've got quite enough dopes as it is.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 13, 2007 9:16 AM
The world is so well endowed with such mindless and witless people.
Posted by: sounder at November 13, 2007 9:32 AM
"We want a Muslim individual, a Muslim home, a Muslim people, a Muslim government and state that will lead the Islamic countries and bring into the fold the Muslim Diaspora and the lands robbed from Islam..." --from above, as taken from the Muslim Brotherhood's web site.
"The lands robbed from Islam..." And what would those lands be? Israel? Spain? Kosovo? Chechnya? Mindinao? South Sudan? Southern Thailand? Kashmir? Maybe these moderates could be so kind as to specify where their excesses end.
Posted by: Chatillon at November 13, 2007 10:48 AM
Ahem, how are they supposed to differ, the brotherhood and Al Qaeda?
Isn't Al Zawahiri from the Ikwan? Don't they all live by the Koran and follow Muhammad, al insan al kamil?
at November 13, 2007 10:50 AM
The Muslim Brotherhood is about as innocuous as SMERSH in a Bond novel. They are the 'suits' of Jihad and have operated for decades out of....Switzerland.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 13, 2007 11:19 AM
""about as innocuous as SMERSH in a Bond novel.."
-- from a posting above
SMERSH is not merely in a Bond novel. It really existed: Smert' Shpionam (Death to Spies). I once met a Russian girl at Radio Liberty in Munich. How did you get to the West, I innocently asked. She explained that her father had been in the Soviet Secret Police, in that very "SMERSH," and back just just before the war (or was it after? Now I'm not sure), noticed that on a brand-new list that had just arrived in the office, from an office higher-up, a multi-page list now sitting on a colleague's desk, specifying people who should now be rounded up in order to be "likvidorovany" (liquidated), his own name appeared on the last page. Thinking quickly, he ripped off not only the last page (the pages had been stapled together) but also the second to last, just as a kind of cover. Within days he had managed to escape -- with his family? without? I can't remember -- across the border into Finland.
"SMERSH" was no fiction.
Posted by: Hugh at November 13, 2007 11:51 AM
An article that appeared here seven weeks ago:
Fitzgerald: A tribute to Robert Leiken
The Brotherhood "works to dissuade the Muslims from violence, instead channeling them into politics and charitable activities," said Robert S. Leiken, director of the Immigration and National Security Program at The Nixon Center in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, a publication of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations. --from this Dallas Morning News article
That sudden scholar of Islam, Robert Leiken, could cheerfully explain his new "expertise" about the Ikhwan and everything to do with Islam the way that candid crook did in the late nineteenth century, Jay Gould or someone of that railroad-magnate or Tammany ilk: "I seen my opportunities, and I took 'em."
That's Leiken. A presto-chango artist, he went from being an "expert" on Latin America to becoming a great "expert" on How To Deal With Islam. Nothing he has written so far shows a deep familiarity, or any familiarity at all, with the texts or tenets of Islam. Nothing he has written so far shows any deep familiarity, or any familiarity at all, with the 1350-year history of Jihad-conquest and of the subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and many smaller groups), a conquest and subjugation which faithfully put into practice the doctrines of Islam, derived from Qur'an, Hadith, and sira, as further discussed by Qur'anic commentators and jurisconsults, resulting in a system of codification, or Holy Law of Islam (i.e., the Shari'a).
Here's something from the New York Sun, June 20, 2007. Read it and weep:
Today the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research will host a meeting with other representatives of the intelligence community to discuss opening more formal channels to the brothers. Earlier this year, the National Intelligence Council received a paper it had commissioned on the history of the Muslim Brotherhood by a scholar at the Nixon Center, Robert Leiken, who is invited to the State Department meeting today to present the case for engagement. On April 7, congressional leaders such as Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, attended a reception where some representatives of the brothers were present. The reception was hosted at the residence in Cairo of the American ambassador to Egypt, Francis Ricciardone, a decision that indicates a change in policy...
A State Department spokesman for the Bureau of Near East Affairs, David Foley, confirmed the meeting Wednesday to discuss a new approach to the Muslim Brotherhood. "We do these seminars, they help inform the policy making process. I am not suggesting someone would decide on a new policy on the Muslim Brotherhood as a result of this," he said. "This is the kind of consultations we often do. When there are alternative views, let's hear both sides. We are certainly willing to listen to voices from the outside."
Making the case today for outreach is Mr. Leiken, who co-authored with Steve Brooke a paper for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs titled, "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood." That paper argues that Ikhwan has drawn contempt from violent Islamists such as Al Qaeda for its general disavowal of armed struggle. Tracing its history to its founding, the paper says the group today, particularly in Egypt, is genuine in its desire to participate in democratic politics.
Mr. Leiken said yesterday that there are two reasons why America should begin to rethink its prohibition of meeting with the brothers. "A new policy begins to combat some of our isolation in the Muslim world. I see the Muslim brotherhood, particularly in Egypt, as having what the communists used to call a two-line struggle, between moderate and dogmatic factions. Our outreach would help the moderates. That would strengthen those forces who are most willing to recognize the fact of Israel's existence and more democratic.”
Mr. Leiken is a Harvard graduate and longtime expert on Latin America who broke with the hard left in the 1980s to oppose the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and who became associated with Social Democrats such as Penn Kemble and Joshua Muravchick. He said he thinks diplomacy with Ikhwan could help us help them to moderate Hamas. "It is conceivable that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, aware Gaza could serve as an index, will try use its influence to get Hamas to be constructive," he said. The Egyptian government has used the Muslim Brothers for at least 10 years as a back channel to Hamas.
Mr. Leiken's Foreign Affairs paper and classified study for the National Intelligence Council has gotten the attention of senior National Security Council officials and Secretary of State Rice, according to two administration officials...
Did you read it? And did you weep? If you didn't, never mind. I wept tears of fury and laughter at the sheer farce of it all, enough tears -- a "portable and compendious ocean" of them -- enough for me, for you, for everyone who read the damn thing.
Robert Leiken. The "expert." The Ikhwan. State Department officials said to be Greatly Impressed. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice....
Say -- do I wake, or sleep
[Posted by Hugh at September 23, 2007]
at November 13, 2007 11:54 AM
Ahem, how are they supposed to differ, the brotherhood and Al Qaeda?
from post by sheik yer'mami
I have a similar question. How do the followers of Sayyid Qutb get to call themselves moderate?
"Sayyid Qutb's call for loyalty to God's oneness and to acknowledge God's sole authority and sovereignty was the spark that ignited the Islamic revolution against the enemies of Islam at home and abroad."
"The bloody chapters of this revolution continue to unfold day after day."
Ayman al-Zawahiri
So the Brothers that have installed themselves in Parliament are moderate? When did they give up the idea of the universal umma, imposed by force?
Posted by: PMK at November 13, 2007 12:40 PM
The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't utilize violent tactics anymore, it's true--but this is the case only because they got annihilated in Syria (Hama, 1982) and Egypt (1990s). They're taking the democratic path because it's the only option left open to them, but once in power they would dispense with democracy without thinking twice about it.
There's nothing "moderate" about them.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 13, 2007 12:45 PM
Wow. Hugh used "dopes" three times in one post.
Posted by: ChristianRepublic at November 13, 2007 1:19 PM
Why isn't it these idiots who are the voices crying in the wilderness?
It is, of course, not just Leiken and Brooke who have failed to take the measure of the brotherhood: Melanie Philips discussed (complete with a pic of al Banna in a fez) Halexi's critique last Friday in her Spectator blog at
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/
(scroll down to 11th Nov - The West's lethal ignorance)
"As I have documented on this blog on numerous occasions, there is a growing and influential lobby promoting the idea that there are within the global Muslim Brotherhood (whose founder, Hassan al Banna, is pictured here) moderate elements with whom the west can do business in common cause against al Qaeda and Iran. Those who subscribe to this view, including ‘conflict resolution’ (sic) outfits such as Conflicts Forum and Forward Thinking, along with individuals such as the former Yossi Beilin aide Daniel Levy and the Tory MP Michael Ancram, are assiduously pushing for ‘engagement’ with Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamists. This message is beginning to achieve some traction within the establishment. The Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said in its report last summer:
'As long as the Muslim Brotherhood expresses a commitment to the democratic process and non-violence, we recommend that the British Government should engage with it and seek to influence its members.' "
Why isn't it these idiots who are the voices crying in the wilderness?
Posted by: wallyUK at November 13, 2007 1:24 PM
The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, initiated a formal alliance with none other than Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. How "moderate" could someone who knowingly commits himself and his then-nascent organization to a movement like the Nazis really have BEEN? Considering that al-Banna was the FOUNDER of the Muslim Brotherhood, how 'moderate' could an organization founded by someone like this really be?
In view of the fact that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the most wanted Islamic terorrist in the world was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, we can see that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't 'moderate' at all, that it is in actuality a fountainhead of Wahabist Islam (the most violent form of Islam in existence--and that is saying plenty). The Muslim Brotherhood, as has been mentioned by others, is in fact the true source of al-Qaeda itself, possibly the greatest enemy of the United States of America and the western democracies to date.
Beware of anyone telling us that the Muslim Brotherhood is benign (or that ANY Islamic organization is benign really, as they all pay their allegiance to the Kuran which orders Muslims to "slay the unbelievers everywhere" in Surah 9.5). Either they know not of which they speak or they are speaking with a forked tongue.
The US government has a war on dope going. Now it needs to initiate a war on dopes before they get us all killed by the Muslim's current world conquest movement spearheaded by al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood...
Posted by: pythagoras at November 13, 2007 2:04 PM
"The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, initiated a formal alliance with none other than Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich."
Well, so did Avraham Stern, but I see your point. Muslims seem to be enraptured with Nazi Germany to this day. During my time in Cairo I saw several cars on whom was affixed a large bumper sticker saying--in English--"THE NEW VERSION OF HITLER." Pretty unambiguous, I'd say.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 13, 2007 2:28 PM
The funny thing about Sayyid Qutb is that in his early life he was initially an eccentric liberal--a hippie of the Muslim world, if you will. He was a writer--in fact it was he who "discovered" Naguib Mahfouz and raised him from obscurity. At some point, all of that changed. I wonder what it was. I suspect it began long before the supposedly "life-changing" visit to the US. Whatever the case, he died an entirely different man.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 13, 2007 2:31 PM
At some point, all of that changed. I wonder what it was.
--RobartSbunsar
I honestly believe that Sayyid Qutb was a queer. A very repressed queer, a hide-in-the-closet queer, but a queer nevertheless.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 13, 2007 2:48 PM
It's quote possible Qutb was a homosexual. Wouldn't surprise me. It's a fact that he never married or was involved in a relationship of any kind.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 13, 2007 3:15 PM
November 13, 2007 (I had this posted on other discussion: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018780.php , but it belonged here! Sorry..)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna as an organization seeking to combat the secularization of the emerging Egyptian state. But it evolved into an organization that saw itself struggling against Western civilization, as a whole, in order to advance what it defined as Muslim civilization.10 It quickly spread and established branches in dozens of countries within the Middle East and even beyond. (my bold) –from JC article
Negotiating with the enemy is bad strategy, which by the enemy’s own agenda will merely embolden them. Better to call them enemies of our freedoms and constitutional government, regardless of whether or not they want to use the democratic process to conquer the West. This is a confrontational issue, and non-negotiable.
Their agenda is Sharia, what they think (erroneously) is the law of their god ‘Allah’, and is diametrically opposed to our agreed upon laws safeguarding our individual human rights and our universal rule of law. Their sharia law is a barbaric regressive totalitarian system recalling medieval theocratic slavery of humanity to their primitive ideology, more akin to Nazism or Stalinism than to any modern democratic form of government. Their only goal, in claiming to use the democratic process, is to conquer us from within with our own laws of democratic vote, tolerance and religious freedom. Don’t let them, because Sharia is not a religion, but a political-cult system of total submission. And if Islam is to ever climb out of the hole of being a primitive 7th century-non-religious cult system, it must be updated to modern form, and its sharia law banned as intolerant and subversive of our human values as a free people. Personal-beliefs and religious-cult political-power are mutually exclusive ideas, as per our US Constitution’s First Amendment, the ‘separation of church and state’, as written by the Founding Fathers of our nation.
Sharia ambitions of world conquest (to make us all submissive to their god Allah) must be understood as a real threat to those freedoms our Constitution enshrined, and which made out nation great. Our history proves us a land of freedom and equal opportunity for all humanity, but we do not condone criminal behavior. The Muslim Brotherhood, with its Hamas, Hezbolla, Al Qaeda and their wanabe sympathizers, have proven themselves violent criminals, by our laws, and thus must be uncategorically condemned. We are successful because we are free, which is something the Shariaists fail to understand. The Muslim Brotherhood, and all its sympathizers, is the enemy. There must be NO negotiations with the enemy. We are at war with them, and only their unconditional surrender can be acceptable. This is non-negotiable, there is no discussion on the principles of our freedoms, and we will never submit to their doctrines of totalitarianism and slavery. Rather than talk, let them know our stand.
Israeli Palestine peace has nothing to do with this. Freedom is non-negotiable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 13, 2007 3:28 PM
Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef:
"Islam and its values antedated the West by founding true democracy, exemplified by the Shura [the advisory council under the Caliphs] and Islam's respect for the equality of other religions...."
Sure, equality of other religions.
"As to the claim that Islam does not recognize civil authority, the authority of Islam is democratic...it is genuine liberty, it provides equality in practice and is transparent, it neither oppresses nor robs any man of his rights...."
Uh-huh, it does not oppress or rob any [Muslim] man of his rights.
Transparent, indeed.
Posted by: awake at November 13, 2007 4:27 PM
It should come as no surprise that there are influential people in government and the media that believe the Muslim Brotherhood are moderate and peaceful. I was told this just a few years ago in my Islamic studies class. This belief is widespread in Academia.
at November 13, 2007 5:03 PM
Antichton: http://www.antichton.com/
In the upside down world of Islam, freedom means submission, right to choose means obedience, democracy means the shura of the Ummah, religious freedom means dhimmitude (or death), love of God means death, natural human laws means obedience to Mohammed’s idea of rule (by Allah), equality of gender means women obey men (female circumcision), justice means punishment by Sharia law (stonings, amputation), secular means evil. Everything about their belief system is backwards and upside down, which manifests into a form of insanity, where up is down, right is wrong, freedom is slavery. This is the true world of ‘antichton’, a shadow world that keeps us hidden from the light. Love is not even mentioned, except love for their Mohammedan god, as there is no love between human beings, and least of all for the opposite sex. Homosexuals are executed, or lashed for ‘fornication’, infidelity is punished by lashings or stonings (death), any act they say is amoral is punished harshly. The world they envision in their ‘liberty’ under Sharia is pure Hell, the opposite of what life is all about.
Mohammed’s Antichton world is Evil.
at November 13, 2007 5:37 PM
I can understand their confusion. For the longest time I thought that the Aryan Nations was a moderate alternative to the Nazi Party. Must have been the ambiguous rhetoric I kept hearing.
Posted by: jewdog at November 13, 2007 6:11 PM
Tours,
Don't forget to mention my favorite (and the Ikhwan's) axiom:
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
Posted by: John C at November 13, 2007 7:11 PM
Comparing the Muslim Brotherhood and A-Q is like comparing Stalinism with Maoism-a few doctrinal difference but both are equally odious.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 13, 2007 9:12 PM
The Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda are essentially one and the same entity. And both are founainheads of Wahabist terrorism.
That's all we really need know about it.
Posted by: pythagoras at November 13, 2007 9:27 PM
Sir,
Most of the time american leaders are happy if their coffers are filled. They compromised with nazies and also fascists from Italy. It is only their mainland was attacked, they wake up.Now also it is 9/11 which woke them up but they are already into slumber as the jehadies are killing only hindus,budhists and asians and some black soldiers in iraq.
Please read the following statement by President Musharaff in 2001. HE JOINED AMERICA and betrayed taliban not because he believed terrorism is wrong but to SAVE TALIBAN FROM THE WORLD!!!He even quotes quoran !!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/pakistantext_091901.html
at November 14, 2007 3:52 AM
"Smersh was originally a part of the Stalin-era security apparatus; its name, an abbreviation of its motto "smert' shpionam" ("death to spies"), reflected its role in counter-espionage and detection of anti-Soviet activity. It was absorbed into the NKVD (the direct predecessor of the KGB) in 1946. Ian Fleming later revived it as one of James Bond's aversaries. Hubbard evidently believed that Smersh still existed and, moreover, was the lynchpin of the supposed anti-Scientology conspiracy."
Posted by: exsgtbrown at November 14, 2007 6:45 AM
Calling the Muslim Brotherhood moderate would be like calling a hitman a moderate serial killer
Posted by: Balrog at November 14, 2007 8:45 AM
A moderate serial killer.
Sounds about right. After all, the hitman only goes after one or two people, not the whole community. He's not bombing the mall, only one guy's house, so he's a moderate. (Yikes!)
Posted by: PMK at November 14, 2007 10:27 AM
At some point, all of that changed. I wonder what it was.
--RobartSbunsar
I honestly believe that Sayyid Qutb was a queer. A very repressed queer, a hide-in-the-closet queer, but a queer nevertheless.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2
One author refers to Qutb as a "born-again" Muslim and says he was secular until his 40s.
According to his timeline, it was indeed his trip to the US that began his odyssey toward violence. A stranger in a strange land, cut off from the only life he had ever known (voluntarily cut off, but cut off nonetheless), he took solace in Islam. Shocked and disgusted by what he saw (women's knees? skin?) in America, he retreated into Islam and began frequenting Brotherhood meetings upon his return to Egypt. He was recruited and almost immediately placed in charge of propaganda.
Who but a Muslim could see depravity in a church dance frequented by married couples?
Posted by: PMK at November 14, 2007 10:38 AM
The people who label the Ikhwan as moderates are the same ones who told us that Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong were democratic nationalists and agrarian reformers.
Posted by: Kepha at November 14, 2007 11:54 AM
We are missing the Third Monkey. Which one of the 3 is missing.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 14, 2007 8:18 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)