Time to Wise Up to the Muslim Brotherhood

July/August 2013

Why, one is left wondering, did the Foreign Office allow Prince Andrew to dignify Chatham House's exaltation of Ghannouchi as an icon of "bridge-building" let alone "tolerance" when Ghannouchi has also worked so closely with a man who thanks Hitler for exterminating six million Jews?

Indeed, why would Ghannouchi himself wish to have anything at all to do with the Brotherhood when, according to Merley, anti-Semitism is core to its ideology? Shortly before becoming Egyptian president, not only did Mohamed Morsi refer to Jews as "apes and pigs", but Merley also discovered that he subscribes to yet another paranoid fantasy: the one about the real 9/11 attackers being as yet "unknown".

So what of the Brotherhood network in Britain? For clues we can turn to the structure we know was established in America in the 1980s by what the FBI has called the "International Muslim Brotherhood". And much of what was strctured there, we know was structured here even earlier.

In the late 1990s, a mass of videos and documents recovered by US law enforcement revealed a tangle of organisations structured like a Russian doll, with one front organisation inside another, inside another and so on. The immediate objective was to strengthen the Brotherhood's Palestinian branch, Hamas, by covertly promoting its goals in America. The focus was to be on the "brutality of the Jews" and religious aspects of the Israel-Palestine conflict, especially Jerusalem. The American investigation led in 2008 to the successful prosecution of four executives of an Islamic charity used as a smokescreen for funding Hamas.

Tags:

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Christopher C.

July 2nd, 2013
4:07 AM

"Let me be clear: followers of the Brotherhood in Britain are not advocating violent jihad here. They condemned the beheading in May of Drummer Lee Rigby by two Muslims on a London street in broad daylight. Their organisations have civic-sounding names; they emphasise human rights, respect for democracy and integration." There is a good Islamic word for those public pronouncements. It is taqqiya - religiously-sanctioned misrepresentation (to say it most politely). But "ordinary" Muslims - are they representative of Islam? Here's a suggestion - what if Hassan al-Banna and others like him are the leaders of an Islamic Reformation. The original Reformation, after all, followed Gutenberg, and the much greater availability of the Bible. Luther and thousands of other Christians went to the source and made their own judgements about the Bible's meanings. So, is there a parallel between post-Gutenberg Europe and the Middle East of the early 20th C.? I suggest that Hassan al-Banna and those of his ilk were, for perhaps the first time, a critical mass for the study of the Koran and the adhadith. And they took the exhortations of both seriously. The language is plain. And it is aggressive. It demands the imposition (not the free acceptance) of sharia. In other words, it demands of Muslims that they be total in their acceptance of Islam, and to ensure that everybody else submit as well (after all, that is what Islam means - submission). The point? "Ordinary" Muslims, in the sense that such persons present no threat to post-Judeo Christians, do not really exist. Those who do not wish to compel others to follow Islam are not really Muslims. The West is in very great trouble that even writers such as Mr Ware can part-recognise the danger, but not travel the last, few necessary steps to describe what we are really faced with.

truthseeker

July 1st, 2013
12:07 PM

The article says the Muslim Brotherhood has made Islam political instead of only religious. In fact, Islam makes no distinction between the political and the religious, as sharia law demonstrates. There is no Islamism, there is only Islam.

Post your comment

More Features