Stagecraft: ISIS Video ‘Execution’ of Ethiopians in Libya Appears Fake


Stagecraft: ISIS Video ‘Execution’ of Ethiopians in Libya Appears Fake

By Shawn Helton

ethiopia-map

A newly released ISIS video allegedly depicts some 30 Ethiopians being ‘executed’ in two separate locations in Libya. 

However, one should take note, that this highly produced propaganda video – fails to provide any conclusive, or remotely credible evidence of a crime scene.

The terror installment said to have been carried out by ISIS militants entitled, “Until There Came to Them Clear Evidence,” was reportedly released by Al-Furqan Media, a media arm linked to the notorious Al-Hayat Media Center, the official media outlet for all sanctioned ISIS propaganda.

Once again, we see a terror motion picture which has been produced for dramatic effect, another work of deception – designed to create an emotional response within the viewer, rather than a rational one.

There have already been major questions concerning the validity of the ISIS propaganda videos. Still, they continue to function as a psychological assault on Western audiences, while serving to socially engineer western foreign policy in the process.

Here is another example…

isis-ethiopian-christians‘SITE on the Scene’ –  SITE Intel broadcasts ISIS propaganda material via social media.

Terror Trickery

On April 19th, it was Reported that a dozen or so Ethiopian men were executed along the beach near the edge of the Mediterranean Sea, while more than a dozen were shot in Southern Libya, but it’s important to remember that the video could have been filmed near almost any clear body of water. Similarly, the desert portion of the ISIS video could have also been filmed at nearly any arid location in the world.

In this latest ISIS propaganda video, quite a few anomalies associated with the production value of the film standout, as there were a number of planned multi-cam shots that would have involved a professional film team, costume designers, props and heavy post-production.

One of the most egregious elements of the staged ‘iconoclastic’ ISIS video, depicts giant-sizedISIS militants escorting their captives to their alleged end. This anomaly is a repeat of the same height discrepancy seen during February’s staged beheadings.

‘ISIS Giants?’ – This screen capture from the latest ISIS video, depicts unusually tall ISIS militants.


The ISIS execution reportedly took place in the Fazzan Province, and later as the desert scene evolves, ISIS members lineup to execute apparent Ethiopian captives at gun point. Although the terror group appears to have fired into the backs of those abducted, when you go frame by frame you see evidence of a heavily edited event. The scene is revealed to have depicted the ‘illusion’ of an execution by firing squad.

Another thing to consider in all of this, is that many of the gruesome images being paraded around by mainstream media, that are most likely used to generate ad revenue, show signs of manipulation, staging and victims whose faces appear almost serene while being executed something which has been present in every ISIS ‘execution’ production thus far.

As of yet, Ethiopian authorities have been ‘unable’ to confirm if their citizens were killed by ISIS militants in Libya. 

‘Pristine Terror’ – Notice the clean ISIS outfits and the nearly untouched guns on display in this most recent film production.

Problem, Reaction, Solution

The new ISIS video follows a winter season that saw several propaganda videos being pushed by the cloaked group and its social media distributors. The most recent film is the second mass execution said to have taken place in Libya at the hands of the now notorious terror group over the past couple of months.

Since last September, we’ve outlined that the ISIS ‘beheading’ videos were likely fakes, with many filmed against a green screen, including stage props, wardrobe design, voice overs and multi-cam videography. It turns out that at least two of the US major networksCNN and FOX News finally admitted this in February, after backlash over a video allegedly depicting a torched Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh.

In late January we were told that a “Tripoli branch of ISIS” claimed responsibility after a suspicious shooting attack on the largely empty Corinthia Hotel in the area. The event was synchronized with a car bombing just outside the hotel, according to the SITE Intelligence Group. It seems more and more that this was likely a setup to transplant the ‘ISIS’ narrative inside Libya.

In a report from February at 21WIRE, prior to experts releasing their conclusion about that ISIS video production, I was able to outline many of the film’s irregularities and inconsistencies proving that the film was indeed heavily orchestrated for maximum effect. 

In late February our assessment of the staged ISIS videos was confirmed. According to Florida-based Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium, the 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians purported to have been decapitated in the video entitled “Signed With Blood: To The Nation Of The Cross,” was ruled to have been ‘staged’ due to the excessive anomalies seen in the dramatic 5 minute film.

While the newest ISIS video appears to depict a shocking escalation of terror, it fails to provide comprehensive evidence of a violent event and therefore should be looked as nothing more than propaganda to gain public support for Western foreign policy objectives – namely the fraudulent proxy campaign in Syria.

Additionally, this latest ISIS event also serves to deflect from the controversial military intervention in Yemen. This is something we’ve been outlining here at 21WIRE over the past month, while most Western media outlets have neglected to discuss Washington’s new proxy.

Here’s another look at an RT news clip from September 2014, where well-known Geopolitical analyst William Engdahl, assesses the deception and alleged roots of ISIS…

The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy


The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy

usa-libya-flag

The mainstream U.S. news media is lambasting the Europeans for failing to stop the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Mediterranean Sea as desperate Libyans flee their war-torn country in overloaded boats that are sinking as hundreds drown. But the MSM forgets how this Libyan crisis began, including its own key role along with that of “liberal interventionists” such as Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power.

In 2011, it was all the rage in Official Washington to boast about the noble “responsibility to protect” the people of eastern Libya who supposedly were threatened with extermination by the “mad man” Muammar Gaddafi. We also were told endlessly that, back in 1988, Gaddafi’s agents had blown Pan Am 103 out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The R2Pers, led by then-National Security Council aide Power with the backing of Secretary of State Clinton, convinced President Barack Obama that a “humanitarian intervention” was needed to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering people whom he claimed were Islamic terrorists.

As this U.S.-orchestrated bombing campaign was about to begin in late March 2011, Power told a New York City audience that the failure to act would have been “extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience.” Power was credited with steeling Obama’s spine to press ahead with the military operation.

Under a United Nations resolution, the intervention was supposed to be limited to establishing no-fly zones to prevent the slaughter of civilians. But the operation quickly morphed into a “regime change” war with the NATO-led bombing devastating Gaddafi’s soldiers who were blown to bits when caught on desert roadways.

Yet, the biggest concern in Official Washington was a quote from an Obama’s aide that the President was “leading from behind” – with European warplanes out front in the air war – when America’s war hawks said the United States should be leading from the front.

At the time, there were a few of us who raised red flags about the Libyan war “group think.” Though no one felt much sympathy for Gaddafi, he wasn’t wrong when he warned that Islamic terrorists were transforming the Benghazi region into a stronghold. Yes, his rhetoric about exterminating rats was over the top, but there was a real danger from these extremists.

And, the Pan Am 103 case, which was repeatedly cited as the indisputable proof of Gaddafi’s depravity, likely was falsely pinned on Libya. Anyone who dispassionately examined the 2001 conviction of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi by a special Scottish court would realize that the case was based on highly dubious evidence and bought-and-paid-for testimony.

Megrahi was put away more as a political compromise (with a Libyan co-defendant acquitted) than because his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, by 2009, the conviction was falling apart. Even a Scottish appeals court expressed concern about a grave miscarriage of justice. But Megrahi’s appeal was short-circuited by his release to Libya on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

Yet the U.S. mainstream media routinely called him “the Lockerbie bomber” and noted that the Libyan government had taken “responsibility” for the bombing, which was true but only because it was the only way to get punitive sanctions lifted. The government, like Megrahi, continued to proclaim innocence.

A Smirking MSM

During those heady days of bombing Libya in 2011, it also was common for the MSM to smirk at the notion that Megrahi was truly suffering from advanced prostate cancer since he hadn’t died as quickly as some doctors thought he might. Then, in September 2011, after Gaddafi’s regime fell, Megrahi’s family invited the BBC and other news organizations to see Megrahi struggling to breathe in his sick bed.

His son, Khaled al-Megrahi, said, “I know my father is innocent and one day his innocence will come out.” Asked about the people who died in the Pan Am bombing, the son said: “We feel sorry about all the people who died. We want to know who did this bad thing. We want to know the truth as well.”

But it was only after Megrahi died on May 20, 2012, that some elements of the MSM acknowledged grudgingly that they were aware of the many doubts about his conviction all along. The New York Times’ obituary carried a detailed account of the evidentiary gaps that were ignored both during the trial in 2001 and during the bombing of Libya in 2011.

The Times noted that “even some world leaders” saw Megrahi

“as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence. … Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.”

Besides the lack of proof supporting that hypothesis was the sheer implausibility that a terrorist would assume that an unattended suitcase could make such an unlikely trip without being detected, especially when it would have been much easier to sneak the suitcase with the bomb onto Pan Am 103 through the lax security at Heathrow Airport outside London.

The Times’ obit also noted that during the 85-day trial,

“None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr. Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr. Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays. …

“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert. Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in [Megrahi’s co-defendant’s] desk in Malta, that Mr. Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.”

In finding Megrahi guilty, the Scottish court admitted that the case was “circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable,” but concluded that “there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt” of Megrahi.

However, the evidence later came under increasing doubt. The Times wrote: “It emerged that Mr. Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr. Megrahi before the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court. The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.” Scottish authorities learned, too, that the U.S. Justice Department paid Gauci $2 million for his testimony.

As for the bomb’s timer, the Times noted that the court called Bollier “untruthful and unreliable” and “In 2007, Mr. Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.

“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored. Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’ words echoed by [South African President Nelson] Mandela.”

In other words, Megrahi’s conviction looked to have been a case of gross prosecutorial misconduct, relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane). And those problems were known prior to Megrahi’s return to Libya in 2009 and prior to the U.S.-supported air war against Gaddafi in 2011.

Yet, Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC and pretty much everyone else in the MSM repeated endlessly that Megrahi was “the Lockerbie bomber” and that Libya was responsible for the atrocity, thus further justifying the “humanitarian intervention” that slaughtered Gaddafi’s soldiers and enabled rebel militias to capture Tripoli in summer 2011.

Al-Qaeda Hotbed

Similarly, there was scant U.S. media attention given to evidence that eastern Libya, the heart of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, indeed was a hotbed for Islamic militancy, with that region supplying the most per-capita militants fighting U.S. troops in Iraq, often under the banner of Al-Qaeda.

Despite that evidence, Gaddafi’s claim that he was battling Islamic terrorists in the Benghazi region was mocked or ignored. It didn’t even matter that his claim was corroborated by a report from U.S. analysts Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman for West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center.

In their report, “Al-Qaeda’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq,” Felter and Fishman analyzed Al-Qaeda documents captured in 2007 showing personnel records of militants who flocked to Iraq for the war against the Americans. The documents showed eastern Libya providing a surprising number of suicide bombers who traveled to Iraq to kill American troops.

Felter and Fishman wrote that these so-called Sinjar Records disclosed that while Saudis comprised the largest number of foreign fighters in Iraq, Libyans represented the largest per-capita contingent by far. Those Libyans came overwhelmingly from towns and cities in the east.

“The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s Northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (53) and Benghazi 23.9% (21),” Felter and Fishman wrote, adding that Abu Layth al‐Libi, Emir of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), “reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al‐Qa’ida.”

Some important Al-Qaeda leaders operating in Pakistan’s tribal regions also were believed to have come from Libya. For instance, “Atiyah,” who was guiding the anti-U.S. war strategy in Iraq, was identified as a Libyan named Atiyah Abd al-Rahman.

It was Atiyah who urged a strategy of creating a quagmire for U.S. forces in Iraq, buying time for Al-Qaeda Central to rebuild its strength in Pakistan. “Prolonging the war [in Iraq] is in our interest,” Atiyah said in a letter that upbraided Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for his hasty and reckless actions in Iraq.

After U.S. Special Forces killed Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, in Pakistan, Atiyah became al-Qaeda’s second in command until he himself was reportedly killed in a U.S. drone strike in August 2011. [See Consortiumnews.com “Time Finally Ran Out for Atiyah.”]

However, to most Americans who rely on the major U.S. news media, little of this was known, as the Washington Post itself acknowledged in an article on Sept. 12, 2011, after Gaddafi had been overthrown but before his murder. In an article on the rise of Islamists inside the new power structure in Libya, the Post wrote:

“Although it went largely unnoticed during the uprising that toppled Gaddafi last month, Islamists were at the heart of the fight, many as rebel commanders. Now some are clashing with secularists within the rebels’ Transitional National Council, prompting worries among some liberals that the Islamists — who still command the bulk of fighters and weapons — could use their strength to assert an even more dominant role.”

On Sept. 15, 2011, the New York Times published a similar article, entitled “Islamists’ Growing Sway Raises Questions for Libya.” It began:

“In the emerging post-Qaddafi Libya, the most influential politician may well be Ali Sallabi, who has no formal title but commands broad respect as an Islamic scholar and populist orator who was instrumental in leading the mass uprising. The most powerful military leader is now Abdel Hakim Belhaj, the former leader of a hard-line group once believed to be aligned with Al Qaeda.”

Belhaj was previously the commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was associated with Al-Qaeda in the past, maintained training bases in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks, and was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

Belhaj and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group denied continued allegiance to Al-Qaeda, but Belhaj was captured during George W. Bush’s post-9/11 “war on terror” and was harshly interrogated by the CIA at a “black site” prison in Thailand before being handed over to Gaddafi’s government which imprisoned and – Belhaj claims – tortured him.

The Times reported that “Belhaj has become so much an insider lately that he is seeking to unseat Mahmoud Jabril, the American-trained economist who is the nominal prime minister of the interim government, after Mr. Jibril obliquely criticized the Islamists.”

The Times article by correspondents Rod Nordland and David D. Kirkpatrick also cited other signs of growing Islamist influence inside the Libyan rebel movement:

“Islamist militias in Libya receive weapons and financing directly from foreign benefactors like Qatar; a Muslim Brotherhood figure, Abel al-Rajazk Abu Hajar, leads the Tripoli Municipal Governing Council, where Islamists are reportedly in the majority.”

It may be commendable that the Post and Times finally gave serious attention to this consequence of the NATO-backed “regime change” in Libya, but the fact that these premier American newspapers ignored the Islamist issue as well as doubts about Libya’s Lockerbie guilt – while the U.S. government was whipping up public support for another war in the Muslim world – raises questions about whether those news organizations primarily serve a propaganda function.

Gaddafi’s Brutal Demise

Even amid these warning signs that Libya was headed toward bloody anarchy, the excited MSM coverage of Libya remained mostly about the manhunt for “the madman” – Muammar Gaddafi. When rebels finally captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, in the town of Sirte – and sodomized him with a knife before killing him – Secretary of State Clinton could barely contain her glee, joking in one interview: “We came, we saw, he died.”

The months of aerial slaughter of Gaddafi’s soldiers and Gaddafi’s own gruesome death seemed less amusing on Sept. 11, 2012, when Islamic terrorists overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. In the two-plus years since, Libya has become a killing ground for rival militias, including some now affiliated with the Islamic State.

As the BBC reported on Feb. 24, 2015, the Islamic State

“has gained a foothold in key towns and cities in the mostly lawless North African state [Libya], prompting Egypt – seeing itself as the bulwark against Islamists in region – to launch air strikes against the group. …

IS has launched its most high-profile attacks in Libya, bombing an upmarket hotel in the capital, Tripoli, in January, and releasing a video earlier this month showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians it had kidnapped. On 20 February, it killed at least 40 people in a suicide bombing in the eastern town of al-Qubbah.”

Now, the chaos that the U.S.-sponsored “regime change” unleashed has grown so horrific that it is causing desperate Libyans to climb into unseaworthy boats to escape the sharp edges of the Islamic State’s knives and other depredations resulting from the nationwide anarchy.

Thus, Libya should be a powerful lesson to Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and the other R2Pers that often their schemes of armed “humanitarianism” can go badly awry and do much more harm than good. It should also be another reminder to the MSM to question the arguments presented by the U.S. government, rather than simply repeating those dubious claims and false narratives.

But neither seems to be happening. The “liberal interventionists” – like their neoconservative allies – remain unchastened, still pumping for more “regime change” wars, such as in Syria. Yet, many of these moral purists are silent about the slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, Palestinians in Gaza, or now Houthis and other Yemenis dying under Saudi bombs in Yemen.

It appears the well-placed R2Pers in the Obama administration are selective in where that “responsibility to protect” applies.

Samantha Power, now serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN, remains the same self-righteous scold denouncing human rights abuses in places where there are American-designated “bad guys” while looking the other way in places where the killing is being done by U.S. “allies.” As for Hillary Clinton, she is already being touted as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.

Meanwhile, the MSM has conveniently forgotten its own propaganda role in revving up the war on Libya in 2011. So, instead of self-reflection and self-criticism, the mainstream U.S. media is filled with condemnations of the Europeans for their failure to respond properly to the crisis of some 900 Libyans apparently drowning in a desperate attempt to flee their disintegrating country.

Investigative Project on Terrorism “THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD”


Investigative Project on Terrorism
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

Introduction:

The Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun)¹ was founded as an Islamic revivalist
movement in the Egyptian town of Isma’iliyaa in March 1928 by school teacher Hassan
al-Banna (1906-1949)²

The Brotherhood’s goal has been to promote the implementation of Shari’ah (Islamic law
derived from the Quran and the Sunnah)³ Early in its history, the Brotherhood focused
on education and charity. It soon became heavily involved in politics and remains a major
player on the Egyptian political scene, despite the fact that it is an illegal organization.

The movement has grown exponentially, from only 800 members in 1936, to over 2
million in 1948, to its current position as a pervasive international Sunni Islamist
movement, with covert and overt branches in over 70 countries.

“I did not want to enter into competition with the other orders,” al-Banna once said. “And
I did not want it to be confined to one group of Muslims or one aspect of Islamic reform;
rather I sought that it be a general message based on learning, education, and jihad.4
According to al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to
impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.5 That helps
explain the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto: “Allah ghayatuna Al-rasul za’imuna. Al-Qur-
‘an dusturuna. Al-jihad sabiluna. Al-mawt fi sabil Allah asma amanina. Allah akbar,
Allah akbar.” (“God is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader,
struggle [jihad] is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes.
God is great. God is great.”)6 *****(that has nothing to do with the Quran but his twisted psychopathic way of thinking)

The Brotherhood has reached global status, wielding power and influence in almost every
state with a Muslim population. Additionally, the Brotherhood maintains political parties
in many Middle-Eastern and African countries, including Jordan, Bahrain, Tunisia,
Algeria, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and even Israel.

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood attempted to overthrow the Syrian government in the 1980s, but the
revolt was crushed. Aside from the Muslim Brotherhood in Israel proper, the terrorist
organization Hamas was founded as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In fact, Article II of the Hamas charter states:

1. They are also known as the Muslim Brothers, The Brothers (al-Ikhwan), or the Society of Muslim
Brothers (Jama’at al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun).
2. Born in Mahmoudiyya, Egypt, Hassan al-Banna was the son of the prominent Imam Sheikh Ahmad al-
Banna. He studied at Al-Ahzar University and joined a Sufi order there. He then moved to Cairo as a
school teacher in 1932 establishing the Muslim Brotherhood branch there. Al-Banna was assassinated by
the Egyptian government on February 12th, 1949 as part of an Egyptian government crackdown on the
Brotherhood.
3. Sharia’h is the body of Islamic religious law. It is primarily based on the Quran and the Sunnah.
4. Hassan al-Banna, quoted in, Richard P. Mitchell, The Society of Muslim Brothers (New York City:
Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 207.
5. Fereydoun Hoveryda, The Broken Crescent, (Westport, CT: Praegar Publishers, 2002), p. 56.
6. Richard P. Mitchell, The Society of Muslim Brothers (New York City: Oxford University Press, 1969), p.
193-4.

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in
Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which
constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterized by
its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all
Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics,
education, society, justice and judgment, the spreading of Islam, education, art,
information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.7

Since its founding, the Muslim Brotherhood has openly sought to reassert Islam through
the establishment of Sunni Islamic governments that will rule according to the strict and
specific tenets of Shari’ah. To the Brotherhood, this is the correct primary endeavor of
human civilization, with the ultimate goal being the unification of these regimes under
the banner of the Caliphate – or universal Islamic state.

According to al-Banna, the Caliphate must govern all lands that were at one time under
the control of Muslims. He stated:
We want the Islamic flag to be hoisted once again on high, fluttering in the wind,
in all those lands that have had the good fortune to harbor Islam for a certain
period of time and where the muzzein’s call sounded in the takbirs and the tahlis.
Then fate decreed that the light of Islam be extinguished in these lands that
returned to unbelief. Thus Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, the Italian coast, as well
as the islands of the Mediterranean, are all of them Muslim Mediterranean
colonies and they must return to the Islamic fold. The Mediterranean Sea and the
Red Sea must once again become Muslim seas, as they once were.8 ****(doesn’t this remind you of the Zionists who want Palestine back?)
Once that is accomplished, the Caliphate is to be expanded to cover the entire globe,
erasing national boundaries under the flag of Islam. This concept was elucidated by the
Brotherhood luminary, Sayyid Qutb, who wrote in his seminal work, Milestones (1964),
that Muslims are not merely obliged to wage jihad in defense of Islamic lands, but must
wage offensive jihad in order to liberate the world from the servitude of man-made law
and governance.9 ****(Sayyid Qutb was even more insane than his predecessor, this is not what the Quran teaches)

Organizational Structure:

The Muslim Brotherhood used activism, mass communication, and sophisticated
governance to build a large support base within the lower class and professional elements
of Egyptian society. By using existing support networks built around mosques, welfare
associations, and neighborhood groups, the Brotherhood was able to educate and
indoctrinate people in an Islamic setting. The organization is headed by a Supreme Guide
or Secretary General and is assisted by a General Executive Bureau (Maktab al-Irshad),
and a constituent assembly known as the Shura Council. There have been six Secretaries
7. “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement,” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, August
18, 1988, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm (Accessed June 9, 2008).
8. Hassan al-Banna, quoted in: Caroline Fourest, Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan
(Encounter Books, 2008), p. 19.
9. Sayyid Qutb, Milestones.

General of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,10 which is widely seen as the leading
branch of the worldwide organization.

Ideology:

The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to restore the historical Caliphate and then expand its
authority over the entire world, dismantling all non-Islamic governments. The
Brotherhood aims to accomplish this through a combination of warfare – both violent and
political.
The Muslim Brotherhood has provided the ideological model for almost all modern Sunni
Islamic terrorist groups. When discussing Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security
Council under Presidents Clinton and Bush – told a Senate committee in 2003 that “The
common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood – all of these organizations are
descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”11

The leadership of Al Qaeda, from Osama bin Laden to his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri
and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed all were influenced by Muslim
Brotherhood ideology.12  ****(We know for a fact that none of the above where involved in the 9/11destruction but they were the easy target).

In fact, al-Zawahiri was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood as a young man, but he broke with them when his terrorist career began. He later wrote a book called The Bitter Harvest in which he condemned the Brotherhood for neglecting jihad in favor of participating in elections.13
The Brotherhood’s ideology was formulated by its two main luminaries: its founder,
Hassan al-Banna – who was assassinated by agents of the Egyptian government in 1949 –
and Sayyid Qutb, hanged in 1966.

Al-Banna once described the Brotherhood as, “a Salafiyya message, a Sunni way, a Sufi
truth, a political organization, an athletic group, a cultural-educational union, an
economic company, and a social idea.”14 While studying in Cairo, al-Banna had become
immersed in the writings of Rashid Rida (1865-1935), Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905)
and Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897), who formed the backbone of the Salafiyya
Movement.15 Al-Banna agreed with their ideas that Islam provided the solution to the
afflictions plaguing Muslim society. Specifically, in accordance with Salafism, he called
for a return to what he perceived to be true Islam.
10. The six Secretaries General of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are: Hassan al-Banna (1928-1949),
Hassan Ismai’l al-Hudaybi (1951-1973), Omar al-Telmesany (1976-1986), Muhammed Hamid Abu al-Nasr
(1986-1996), Mustafa Mashour (1996-2002), Ma’amun al-Hodeiby (2002-2004), and current leader
Mohammed Mahdi Akef.
11. Statement of Richard A. Clarke before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, October 22, 2003.
12. Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, “The Muslim Brotherhood: A Moderate Islamic Alternative to
al-Qaeda or a Partner in Global Jihad?” Jerusalem Viewpoints, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,
November 1, 2007. *****(This is not MODERATE ISLAM)
13. Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday: New York, 2007), p. 116.
14. Hassan al-Banna, quoted in, Mitchell, Society of Muslim Brothers, p. 14.
15. The term Salafiyyah comes from the phrase as-salaf as-saliheen or “pious predecessors” of early the
Muslim community, referring primarily to Muhammad’s companions (sahaba).

Salafism is an austere form of Islam within the Sunni sect that attempts to return to what
its adherents believe to be unadulterated Islam as practiced by Muhammad and his
companions. In order to achieve this, Salafists strip out what they see as bida, or
innovations, from the practice of Islam as it has developed over the centuries. According
to Salafists, only pure Islam can solve the political, economic, social, domestic, and
external issues of the Muslim nation (ummah). As such, Muslim societies should be
governed according to Shari’ah.
While al-Banna drew almost exclusively on early Islamic doctrine in his works, it is also
important to understand the strong anti-colonialism sentiments driving his ideology. Al-
Banna was writing and working at a time when European powers had colonized the
Middle East.
Jihad, death, and martyrdom have been lauded throughout the history of the Brotherhood,
not only as a means to achieve the above goals, but as an end unto itself. In his seminal
work, The Society of Muslim Brothers, Robert P. Mitchell the late University of Michigan
Professor of Near Eastern History, quotes and paraphrases al-Banna:
The certainty that jihad had this physical connotation is evidenced by the
relationship always implied between it and the possibility, even the necessity, of
death and martyrdom. Death, as an important end of jihad, was extolled by
Banna in a phrase which came to be a famous part of his legacy: “the art of death”
(fann al-mawt). “Death is art” (al-mawt-fann). The Qur’an has commanded
people to love death more than life. Unless “the philosophy of the Qur’an on
death” replaces “the love of life” which has consumed Muslims, then they will
reach naught. Victory can only come with the mastery of “the art of death.” In
another place, Banna reminds his followers of a Prophetic observation: “He who
dies and has not fought [ghaza; literally: raided] and was not resolved to fight, has
died a jahiliyya [ignorance of divine guidance] death.” The movement cannot
succeed, Banna insists, without this dedicated and unqualified kind of jihad.16
Jihad is a central tenet in the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. In a booklet entitled,
“Jihad” and in other works, al-Banna clearly defines jihad as violent warfare against non-
Muslims to establish Islam as dominant across the entire world. He wrote:
Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor
evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of
the martyrs and fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted
similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their
performance of jihad can join them in this reward.17  ****(WHAT he writes is absolute BS Allah forbids this kind of warfare and especially when people are unarmed, or if the believe in another religion has to be respected… Banna took this passage out of context as he always wanted to join the CRUSADERS, he was insane and the Westerners helped him along with this insanity)
To support his assertions about jihad, al-Banna quotes extensively from the Quran, the
Hadith, and great Islamic scholars. These quotes either define jihad as fighting and/or
16. Mitchell, Society of Muslim Brothers, p. 207.
17. Hassan al-Banna, “Jihad,” http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/ (Accessed June 9,
2008).
emphasize the obligatory nature of jihad. On the specific subject of “fighting with People
of the Book [Jews and Christians],”18 al-Banna quotes Quran 9:29 – the infamous sword
verse:
Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor in his Last Day, nor forbid that
which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who
acknowledge not the Religion of Truth (i.e. Islam), from among the People of the
Book, until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued.
Al-Banna quotes a Hanafi scholar:
Jihad linguistically means to exert one’s utmost effort in word and action; in the
Sharee’ah it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that
are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating
them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing
their idols.19 *****(exactly what the CRUSADERS DID IN THE HOLY LAND against the Muslim population is it a coincidence that Banna recites the same… I was told by my father who is a scholar on Islamic religion that at the time of the Prophet when he was fighting against the nomads who were against the religion as they believed in totems the Turks approached him and told him we will become Muslims if you allow us to fight beside you and become like the Crusaders, The Prophet refused and told them that Islam and the preaching of the Quran forbids such a thing other religions will have to pay poll tax and cannot force people to change their belief in their God as long as they believe in one God whether its Christian or Jewish they must believe in one God.)
Al-Banna continues:
Islam allows jihad and permits war until the following Qur’anic verse is fulfilled:
“We will show them Our signs in the universe, and in their own selves,
until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur’an) is the truth” (Surat
al-Fussilat (41), ayah 53)20
In conclusion, al-Banna writes:
My brothers! The ummah [Islamic community] that knows how to die a noble and
honourable death is granted an exalted life in this world and eternal felicity in the
next. Degradation and dishonour are the results of the love of this world and the
fear of death. Therefore prepare for jihad and be the lovers of death.21
To ensure that the Shari’ah would be the “the basis controlling the affairs of state and
society,”22 al-Banna laid out a seven-step hierarchy of goals to be implemented by the
Brotherhood for the Islamization of society. The first step is to educate and “form” the
Muslim person. From there the Muslim person would spread Islam and help “form” a
Muslim family. Muslim families would group together to form a Muslim society that
18. Al-Banna, “Jihad.”
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. “The Principles of the Muslim Brotherhood” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim Brotherhood Website
(Cached),
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2_Lj7AHyW7oJ

would establish a Muslim government. The government would then transform the state
into an Islamic one governed by Shari’ah, as voted by the Muslim society. This Islamic
state would then work to free “occupied” Muslim lands and unify them together under
one banner, from which Islam could be spread all over the world.
As Mitchell explains, quoting original Brotherhood sources, these goals would be carried
out in three stages. Starting with “the first stage through which all movements must pass,
the stage of ‘propaganda, communication, and information.’”23 In this stage, the
Brotherhood would recruit and indoctrinate core activists. The next stage consists of
“formation, selection, and preparation.”24 In this stage, the Brothers would endear
themselves to the population by creating charities, clinics, schools, and other services.
More importantly, they would prepare for the third and final stage: the stage of
“execution.25 Of this stage, al-Banna stated:
At the time that there will be ready, Oh ye Muslim Brothers, three hundred
battalions, each one equipped spiritually with faith and belief, intellectually with
science and learning, and physically with training and athletics, at that time you
can demand of me to plunge with you through the turbulent oceans and to rend
the skies with you and to conquer with you every obstinate tyrant. God willing, I
will do it.26
Qutb and Jahiliyya
In addition to al-Banna’s founding philosophy, the works of Sayyid Qutb (1909-1966)
also had a major impact on the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Beyond that,
Qutb’s books sent shockwaves throughout the entire Islamic world. His most influential
works were Fi zilal al-Qur’an (“In the Shade of the Quran”)27 and Ma’alim fi al-Tariq
(“Milestones”). Milestones has come to be Qutb’s most popular work and has influenced
Islamic extremists such as Ayman al-Zawahiri,28 Dr. Abdullah Azzam, 29 and Osama bin
Laden.30
23. Mitchell, Society of Muslim Brothers, p. 13.
24. Risalat Al-Mu’tamar al-khamis (Message of the Fifth Congress), quoted in Mitchell, Society of Muslim
Brothers, p. 14.
25. Ibid, 15.
26. Ibid.
27. This work, written while Qutb was languishing in an Egyptian jail cell (1954-1964), is a 30 volume
commentary (tafsir) on the Quran. A highly popular work, Qutb in his commentary advocates for shari’ah
to be implemented in all Muslim societies. It also contains significant amounts of vitriol directed primarily
at Jews.
28. Zawahiri, also a member of the Brotherhood since the age of fourteen (1965) became familiar with
Qutb’s writings while he was in Saudi Arabia. There he came under the tutelage of Sayyid’s brother
Muhammad Qutb, who fled Egypt in 1972 and began teaching his brother’s philosophy while a professor at King Abdel-Aziz University in Jeddah and the Umm al-Qura University in Mecca. Osama Bin Laden also
reportedly attended Muhammad Qutb’s lectures there too.
17. Jim Landers, “Muslim Extremists Justify Violence on Way to Restoring Divine Law,” Dallas Morning
News, November 3, 2001.
30. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States

Written while Qutb was in prison in Egypt,31 Milestones’ central thesis was that the
world had degraded into a state of ignorance (as existed before the Prophethood of
Mohammad) or jahiliyya.32 He proposed that the overthrow of apostate rulers and the
establishment of Islamic societies worldwide though offensive jihad is the only way to
solve this state of affairs. In addition to Hassan al-Banna’s ideas, Qutb was heavily
influenced by the writings of Indian Islamist Sayyid Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi (1903-
1979)33 and the medieval scholar Taqi ad-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328).
However, Qutb expanded on their ideas of jahiliyyah and jihad.
As the 9/11 Commission Report found, Qutb came to the U.S. to study in the late 1940s:
Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He
dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western
society possesses “nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its
existence.” Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed
that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition
he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the
revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can
choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people,
including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to
his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam.

Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All
Muslims—as he defined them—therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any
Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of
destruction.34
While both Maududi and Ibn Taymiyyah used jahiliyya to describe some contemporaries,
Qutb described the whole of the Muslim community to be in jahiliyya, as “the Muslim
community has long ago vanished from existence.35 Since Arab secular leaders did not
follow the Shari’ah, they were considered to be in apostasy for violating God’s
sovereignty (al-hakimiyya) on earth. In fact, “any place where the Shari’ah is not
31. Qutb spent ten years in prison from 1954 to 1964 after being arrested for being a member of the
Brotherhood (he joined in 1953) when Nasser outlawed the organization in 1954. Milestones was published when Qutb emerged from prison in 1965, even though Qutb was arrested and jailed again for preaching for an Islamic state in Egypt. He was executed on August 29th, 1966 with excerpts from Milestones used against him during his trial. After his execution he became a “Martyr” (Shaheed) to his followers.
32. Jahiliyyah can be loosely translated as a state of “ignorance of divine guidance” referring to the
conditions in pre-Islamic Arabian society before the revelations of the Quran by Allah and the Prophet
Muhammad.
33. Also written as Maududi, Maudoodi, or Mawdudi. He founded the Pakistani Islamic group Jamaat-e-
Islami in 1941 with the goal of establishing an Islamic state in South Asia. He headed the party until 1973
and was well known for his writings on Islam.
34. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final
Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (New York: Norton,
2004), p. 51.
35. Qutb, Sayyid. Milestones. (Syria: Damascus, Dar al-Ilm), 9.
enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes the Abode of War (Dar-ul-Harb).”36
Jahiliyyah now included all states, whether ruled by Muslims or not.
To achieve his vision, Qutb advocated for the creation of a vanguard (tali’a), whose
members would model themselves after the Prophet Muhammad’s companions. This
vanguard would then fight jahiliyya and its influences through
methods of preaching (daw’a) and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs; and
it uses physical power and Jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities
of the jahili system which prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs
but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and make them serve human lords
instead of the Almighty Lord.37
According to his vision, the vanguard would not “compromise with the practices of jahili
society, nor can we be loyal to it,” Qutb wrote. “Jahili society, because of its jahili
characteristics (described as evil and corrupt), is not worthy to be compromised with.38
Qutb’s jihad against Dar al-Harb (Abode of War),39 was not only to protect the Dar al-
Islam (Abode of Islam) but also to enhance it and spread it “throughout the earth to the
whole of mankind.”40 Adherence to Shari’ah would free mankind from the jahiliyyah
influences. This war would not be temporary, “but an eternal state, as truth and falsehood
cannot co-exist on this earth.”41

The Brotherhood Today:

While many Muslim Brotherhood branches around the world claim to have embraced
democracy, the philosophies developed by Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb still carry
great influence within the organization. The Brotherhood continues to be driven by al-
Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate the world. The
Brotherhood’s declared principles remain steadfast even today. According to their
website, the Brotherhood seeks, “the introduction of the Islamic Shari’ah as the basis
controlling the affairs of state and society” and “unification among the Islamic countries
and states…liberating them from foreign imperialism.”42 This includes “spreading
Islamic concepts that reject submission to humiliation, and incite to fighting it” while
36. Ibid., 124.
37. Ibid., 55.
38. Ibid., 21.
39 The Dar al-Harb (Abode of War) traditionally is considered to be countries and places where Islam is
not predominant or areas not ruled by Muslims.
40. Milestones, 72.
41. Ibid., 66.
42 .“The Principles of the Muslim Brotherhood” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim Brotherhood Website
(Cached),
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2_Lj7AHyW7oJ:
(Accessed June 10, 2008).

“reviving the will of liberation and independence in the people, and sowing the spirit of
resistance.”43
Some have contended that there is a “moderate” wing to the Muslim Brotherhood that
can and should serve as a bridge between the Islamic world and the West, 44 but this claim
has been much disputed in academia and the media. Proponents of this theory claim that
beginning with Hassan al-Hudaybi – al-Banna’s immediate successor as Supreme Guide
– the Brotherhood took a moderate turn.
Detractors 45 note the proponents’ lack of background in the subject matter. They also cite
the Brotherhood’s persistent support of violence, under the rubric of resistance against
occupation, and the greater popularity of decidedly immoderate figures like Sayyid Qutb
over al-Hudaybi in the modern Brotherhood (Qutb’s books can be found in a variety of
languages all around the world. The same cannot be said for al-Hudaybi’s). One scholar
has questioned whether al-Hudaybi even penned the moderate volume, Preachers, Not
Judges, that has been credited to him, raising the possibility that the Egyptian intelligence
service played a role in its production.46
In the fall of 2007, the Brotherhood issued its first official platform in decades. The
platform explains, in plain terms, the agenda of the Brotherhood in Egypt and the Islamic
world. It calls for: “Spreading and deepening the true concepts of Islam as a complete
methodology that regulates all aspects of life.” Here are some other notable excerpts
from the platform:
– “The intentions of the Islamic Shari’ah which aim for the realization of the
important aspects and needs and good achievements in the realm of religion
and spirit and the self and property and intellect and wealth represent the
ruling policy in the defining of the priorities of the goals and strategic
policies.”
– “Islam has developed an exemplary model for a state.”
– “The Islamic methodology aims to reform the state of limited capabilities to
make it into a strong Islamic state…”
Whatever moderating stance the platform takes, in August 2004, the Brotherhood issued
a public appeal of support for those fighting coalition forces in Iraq,47 and the following
43. “Reading into The Muslim Brotherhood’s Documents,” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim Brotherhood
Website, June 13, 2007, http://www.ikhwanweb.org/Article.asp?ID=818&LevelID=2&SectionID=116
(Accessed May 29, 2008).
44. Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” Foreign Affairs, March-
April 2007.
45. Douglas Farah, Youssef Ibrahim, Patrick Poole, and others.
46. Barbara Zollner, “Prison Talk: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Internal Struggle During Gamal Abdel
Nasser’s Persecution, 1954-1971” (International Journal of Muddle East Studies, 39, 2007), pp. 411–433.
47 .“The Muslim Brotherhood Movement in Support of Fighting Americans Forces in Iraq,” MEMRI Special

Dispatch Series, September 3, 2004.

month, spiritual guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa deeming it a religious duty for
Muslims to fight America in Iraq.48
The Brotherhood also plays an active role today in promoting terrorism against American
interests. The Brotherhood actively supports Hamas to “face the U.S. and Zionist
strategy” in the Occupied Territories and supports their “legitimate resistance.”49
A November 2007 interview with Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef
shows the group remains committed to violence against those it views as occupiers.
Akef, the Supreme Guide, pledged 10,000 fighters for Palestine but said it was up to a
government to arm and train them. In the same interview, Akef denied the existence of Al
Qaeda:
“All these things are American Zionist tricks,” Akef said. “The Shi’ites
attack one another, the Sunnis attack one another, and the Shi’ites attack
the Sunnis. But the Muslim Brotherhood has a principle, which I declared
from day one: The Shi’ites and Sunnis are brothers.”
[…]
“I’d like to go back to the issue of Al-Qaeda. There is no such thing as Al-
Qaeda. This is an American invention, so that they will have something to
fight for…”
Interviewer: “What about Osama bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and the Islamic
State of Iraq?”
Akef: “When one man, or two or three, fight this tyrannical global
superpower – is it worth anything?”50
Interviewer: “Thousands have carried out attacks in the Iraq in the name of
Al-Qaeda…”
Akef: “That is a lie. Who says so?”
Interviewer: “They do.”
That argument fits with a theory offered by Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi,
senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs. He argues that Al Qaeda and the Brotherhood share the same final goal – the
establishment of a global Caliphate – but the Brotherhood fears “that an Al-Qaeda attack
48. “Cleric Says It’s Right to Fight U.S. Civilians in Iraq,” Reuters, September 2, 2004.
49. ”Reading into The Muslim Brotherhood’s Documents,” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim Brotherhood
Website, June 13, 2007, http://www.ikhwanweb.org/Article.asp?ID=818&LevelID=2&SectionID=116
(Accessed May 29, 2008).
50. Special Dispatch – Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project, MEMRI TV Project, December 18, 2007.

against the West at this time might hamper the Islamic movement’s buildup and focus the
West on the threat implicit in Muslim communities.”51
Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood and spiritual guide al-Qaradawi condemned al Qaeda’s
actions in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
However, in an interview on May 23, 2008 with the online Arabic news service Elaph,52
Akef seemed to change his approach. He was asked: “Regarding resistance and jihad, do
you consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid?” In response, Akef
said, “In all certainty, a mujahid, and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the
occupation, close to Allah on high.”53 He was then asked about his previous denial about
the existence of al Qaeda, and said, “The name is an American invention, but al Qaeda as
a concept and organization comes from tyranny and corruption.”
The interviewer followed with this question: “So, do you support the activities of al
Qaeda, and to what extent?” Akef said, “Yes, I support its activities against the occupiers,
and not against the people.”
Two days later, in another interview the Saudi-owned pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat,
Akef tried to clarify some of his comments about al Qaeda after receiving criticism from
religious and political leaders about his remarks in the May 23 interview. He said:
We (the Brotherhood) have nothing to do with al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden… we
are against violence except when fighting the occupier…When he [bin Laden]
fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, and when he attacks civilians, then this is
rejected. The word al Qaeda is an American illusion…Bin Laden has a thought
…his thought is based on violence, and we do not approve of violence under any
circumstances except one and that is fighting an occupier. We have nothing to do
with al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden…we condemn any thought that leads to
violence. When bin Laden fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, when he
attacks the innocent and citizens then this is rejected.54
In June 2008, Mohammad Habib, the first deputy chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood,
sat down with an interviewer from Al Ahrar, an Egyptian daily. In the long interview,
Habib spoke to the international Muslim Brotherhood:
Al-Ahrar: But what about the view that the Muslim Brotherhood will perish in
the coming twenty years?
51. Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, “The Muslim Brotherhood: A Moderate Islamic Alternative to
al-Qaeda or a Partner in Global Jihad?” Jerusalem Viewpoints, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,
November 1, 2007.
52. Interview with Mohammad Akef, Elaph, May 23, 2008,
http://65.17.227.80/ElaphWeb/AkhbarKhasa/2008/5/332823.htm (Accessed May 28, 2008).
53. Ibid.
54. Abd-al-Sattar Ibrahim, “Akif tells Al-Sharq al-Awsat: The Brotherhood is Against Al-Qa’idah
Organization Targeting Civilians; Bin Ladin’s Thought is Based on Violence” Al-Sharq al-Awsat, May 25,
2008, FROM: BBC Monitoring International Reports.

Dr. Habib: On the contrary, I see that the future is ours, and we will reach our
aspirations. The group is gaining every day more territories and a depth in the
consciousness of the Egyptian people. Add to this, the group is not confined to
Egypt, it has offshoots in various countries all over the world, it continuously
grows, achieves more successes at all levels.
Al-Ahrar: What about the international Muslim Brotherhood?
Dr. Habib: There are entities that exist in many countries all over the world.
These entities have the same ideology, principle and objectives but they work in
different circumstances and different contexts. So, it is reasonable to have
decentralization in action so that every entity works according to its
circumstances and according to the problems it is facing and in their framework.
This actually achieves two objectives: First: It adds flexibility to movement.
Second: It focuses on action. Every entity in its own country can issue its own
decision because it is more aware of the problems, circumstances and context in
which they are working. However, there is some centralization in some issues.
These entities can have dialogue when there is a common cause that faces Arabs
or Muslims over their central issues like the Palestinian cause. At that time, all of
them must cooperate for it. I want to confirm that while some see that Palestine
caused rifts among the Arabs, we see that this cause is the one for which all Arabs
unite.55

The Brotherhood in the West

In the United States, the Brotherhood has had an active presence since the 1960s. They
have been represented by various organizations such as the Muslim Students’ Association
(MSA) founded in 1963, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) 1971, the Islamic
Society of North America (ISNA) 1981, the International Institute of Islamic Thought
(IIIT) 1981, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) 1981, the United Association for
Studies and Research (UASR) 1989, the American Muslim Council (AMC) 1990, the
Muslim American Society (MAS) 1992, the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA),
the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) 1994, and others. In fact, nearly all
prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are rooted in the Muslim
Brotherhood.
An internal Brotherhood memorandum, released during the terror-support trial of the
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial in July 2007 shows that
the Brotherhood’s jihad can take more subtle and long range approaches. Dated to May
22, 1991, the memo states:
The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad
in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
55 “Interview with MB Deputy Chairman in Al Ahrar Daily,” IkhwanWeb.Org, Official Muslim
Brotherhood Website, June 16, 2008,
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Article.asp?ID=17267&LevelID=1&SectionID=0 (Accessed June 17, 2008).

‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so
that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other
religions.56
That theme was picked up four years later by a Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim
Brotherhood spiritual leader attending a conference in Toledo, Ohio. Al-Qaradawi has
been offered the post of General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood twice, but has turned
it down in favor of building and managing several Islamist organizations in the West and
the Middle East associated with the Brotherhood.57 At the Ohio conference hosted by the
Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), he said, “Our brothers in Hamas, in Palestine,
the Islamic resistance, the Islamic Jihad, after all the rest have given up and despaired, the
movement of the Jihad brings us back to our faith.”58
He later added:
What remains, then, is to conquer Rome. The second part of the omen. “The city
of Hiraq [once emperor of Constantinople] will be conquered first,” so what
remains is to conquer Rome. This means that Islam will come back to Europe for
the third time, after it was expelled from it twice… Conquest through Da’wa
[proselytizing], that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will
conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.

But the balance of power will change, and this is what is told in the Hadith of Ibn-
Omar and the Hadith of Abu-Hurairah: “You shall continue to fight the Jews and
they will fight you, until the Muslims will kill them. And the Jew will hide behind
the stone and the tree, and the stone and the tree will say: ‘Oh servant of Allah,
Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!’ The resurrection will
not come before this happens.” This is a text from the good omens in which we
believe.59
Prominent Brotherhood organizations in Europe include the Forum of European Muslim
Youth and Student Organizations, the Muslim Association of Britain, the European
Council for Fatwa and Research, the Islamische Gemeinschaft Deutschland (IGD), and
the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF).
56. U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, 04-CR-240 Government exhibit 3-85.
57. Mona El-Ghobashy, “The Metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers,” International Journal of
Middle East Studies (Cambridge University Press, 2005) p. 385.
58. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, MAYA Conference, 1995, Toledo, Ohio.
59. Ibid.

The Muslim Brotherhood – The Globalists’ Secret Weapon


The Muslim Brotherhood – The Globalists’ Secret Weapon

I. The Roots of Islamic Terrorism

Over the past half-century religion has been in decline in the Western part of the world and in most of the East as well. Spirituality has been traded for materialism as living standards have increased, and popular culture has become almost completely secular as well. Why has the situation been different within the Middle East? How come the Judeo-Christian ethic has eroded, but the Islamic ethic has experienced an apparent resurgence? This study will try to explain how this situation is not something that has occurred by chance and it will offer evidence that militant Islam has been a card played by the global elites of the dominant Anglo-American establishment to achieve the long-term goal of a world government.

Before we turn to the events of September 11 we must first look at the small group of Muslim scholars who developed the ideology, and then as we continue it will become clear how tight-knit and closely connected the movement really is. It is a small movement within the religion of Islam, but it is very influential and its effectiveness must be measured in other ways than simply counting the number of adherents to its philosophy.

As we related in Part One, the British used Islam to legitimize their puppet rulers in Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Palestine after taking over the Middle East in World War I. Because of this Islam was seen by much of the Arab populace as just another part of the corrupt colonial establishment. That is why the legitimate anti-colonial movements, such as those of Nasser, Mossadegh and Bhutto, were primarily secular in nature. When these nationalist movements began to succeed outside of the British sphere of influence the British turned to their Islamic allies to subvert these independent regimes. The Muslim Brotherhood stands out as the most important counter-revolutionary movement of this period in the Middle East, and one of the British-based Globalists’ most important strategic assets today.

The Muslim Brotherhood emerged out of Egypt in 1928 to evolve into “the largest and most influential Sunni revivalist organization in the 20th century.” It was founded by Hasan al-Banna, the first son of a respected sheik who was also an author and the leader of a local mosque. Hasan was born in 1906 and was brought up immersed in Islam under his father’s tutelage. He memorized the Koran and at age twelve he founded an organization called the Society For Moral Behavior.

Shortly after he created another group, the Society for Impeding the Forbidden. He was a devout Muslim dedicated to his faith and at age sixteen he enrolled in an Islamic school in Cairo to train to become a teacher. As a teenager Hasan al-Banna also became a member of a Sufi order, the Hasafiyya Brothers’ order. He was active in the order, reading all of the Sufi literature he could get his hands on, and he organized a Sufi group, the Hasafiyya Society for Welfare. (1)

In Part One of this study we related several allegations that the Muslim Brotherhood was created, infiltrated, or at least promoted by British Intelligence and/or British Freemasonry. Dr. John Coleman alleges that it was created by “the great names of British Middle East intelligence…”, Stephen Dorril writes that the Brotherhood was linked to British Intelligence through dame Freya Stark prior to World War II, and the Shah’s regime in Iran considered it to be a tool of British Freemasonry.

Some Muslims will find these claims hard to believe but they should not be rejected out of hand. Hasan al-Banna was a devout Muslim who put Islam first but it should not be considered inconceivable that he was influenced by Britain’s Masonic Brotherhood, or that he accepted British aid to advance his movement, at least in the early stages. Islam was used effectively by the British outside of Egypt, so why would they not try to use it in Egypt as well?

Freemasonry appeared in Egypt soon after Napoleon’s conquest in 1798 when General Kleber, a French Mason and top commander in Napoleon’s army established the Lodge of Isis. French Masonry dominated Egypt until British lodges began to appear after the British occupation in 1882. Freemasonry was very popular in the first half of the twentieth century, and many important Egyptians were Masons, along with the British rulers and aristocrats who occupied the country.

In fact the Egyptian monarchs, from Khedive Ismail to King Fouad, were made honorary Grand Masters at the start of their reigns. From 1940 to 1957 there were close to seventy Masonic lodges chartered throughout Egypt. At one time the leaders of the Nationalist and Wafd parties were Freemasons, and many members of the Egyptian parliament were Masons as well, where they mingled with the military commanders and aristocrats of the ruling British occupation. (2)

Two very important Islamic leaders in Egypt, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Mohammed Abdou, were also Freemasons. Al-Afghani was a foreigner who had been the prime minister of Afghanistan before becoming an activist in Iran and Russia prior to his appearance in Egypt. He is considered “the founder of the political pan-Islamic movement,” and his movement is known as the Salafiyya movement.

He agitated against British imperialism but at the same time he advocated modernization for the Muslim world. Before being expelled from Egypt he became an important figure at Al-Azhar University in Cairo and his most important disciple was Mohammed Abduh. Throughout his life he was an activist for Muslim self-determination, but several times he visited London where, according to one biographer, “he reestablished ties with his lodge members.” When al-Afghani died in 1897 he left behind a large body of political and religious writings that would form part of the basis for the later Islamist movements. (3)

After al-Afghani was expelled from Egypt in 1879 Mohammed Abduh continued to promote his reformist message. For this Abduh was expelled in 1882. During his exile he met up with al-Afghani in Paris where they collaborated to publish a Muslim journal and where they expanded their contacts within the Masonic Brotherhood. Four years later the British had a change of heart and they allowed Abduh to return.

He became a teacher at Al-Azhar University where he focused on reforming the prestigious Islamic institution. At the same time he quickly rose to become a judge in the National Courts. Only eleven years after returning from his British-imposed exile the ruling British governor, Lord Cromer, made Sheikh Mohammed Abduh the Grand Mufti of Egypt, in 1899. He was now the Pope of Islam.(4) At the same time he was the Masonic Grand Master of the United Lodge of Egypt. (5)

There was of course an ulterior motive for Cromer making Abduh the most powerful figure in all of Islam. You see, in 1898 the ruling council of Al-Azhar University had reaffirmed that usury, and thus banking according to the Western model, was harem (illegal) according to Islamic Law. This was unacceptable to Lord Cromer because his given name happened to be Evelyn Baring – he was an important member of England’s prestigious Baring banking family that had grown rich off of the opium trade in India and China.

Lord Cromer installed his friend Sheikh Abduh to change the law forbidding banking, and once he was made Grand Mufti he used a very liberal and creative interpretation of the Quran to fabricate a loophole that allowed the forbidden practice of usury. British banks then had free reign to dominate Egypt. In Lord Cromer’s writings he says, “I suspect my friend Abduh was in reality an agnostic,” and he commented on Abduh’s Salafiyya movement saying, “They are the natural allies of the European reformer.” Even Cromer saw that the Islamist movement could be used to Britain’s advantage. (6)

Sheikh Mohammed Abduh had two students that were important in continuing the Salafiyya movement after he died in 1905. One of them was Sheikh Ahmad Abd al-Rahman al-Banna, who was Hasan al-Banna’s father. The other was Mohammed Rashid Rida, a freemason who became Sheikh Abduh’s good friend and publisher of the monthly magazine, The Lighthouse. This mouthpiece of the Salafiyya movement was first published in 1897, and Rida remained the publisher for thirty-seven years. Rida also existed within the British circle of influence and his publication reflected the British point of view by agitating against the Ottoman Empire. He praised the freemasonic Young Turk movement, but after World War I he castigated Turkey’s nationalist revolution under Ataturk. (7)

Hasan al-Banna’s young life was influenced by all of these factors: by the Islamic movement, by the British occupation, by his father, and by his most important mentor, Mohammed Rashid Rida. Al-Banna grew up reading Rida’s publication and through his family connections they became good friends. At his death in 1935 Rida had placed all of his hope for an Islamic resurgence in al-Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood. The other factor in Hasan al-Banna’s life was Freemasonry. Al-Banna experimented with numerous religious sects and political groups as a young man and he also became a member of the Masonic Brotherhood. This was entirely normal for someone growing up in the higher echelons of Egyptian society at the time and his membership was not considered a betrayal of Islamic values as it is today. (8)

In 1927, at the age of twenty-one after graduating from his university, he was appointed to teach Arabic at a school in Ismailiyya. This town happened to be the capital of the British-occupied Canal Zone and the headquarters of Britain’s Suez Canal Company. Hasan al-Banna established the Muslim Brotherhood there a year later. The Suez Canal Company helped to provide the funds for the first Muslim Brotherhood mosque that was built in Ismailiyya in 1930. (8a)

An important question is how, among a multitude of competing Islamic organizations, did the Muslim Brotherhood expand with such great leaps and bounds to number over 500,000 active members only a decade later? Al-Banna was only twenty-two when it began, and it was based in the heart of British occupied territory for its first four years. Contemporary histories credit the Brotherhood’s success directly to the organizational skills of al-Banna:

The single most important factor that made this dramatic expansion possible was the organizational and ideological leadership provided by al-Banna. He endeavored to bring about the changes he hoped for through institution-building, relentless activism at the grassroots level and a reliance on mass communication. He proceeded to build a complex mass movement that featured sophisticated governance structures; sections in charge of furthering the society’s values among peasants, workers and professionals; units entrusted with key functions, including propagation of the message, liaison with the Islamic world and press and translation; and specialized committees for finances and legal affairs.

In anchoring this organization into Egyptian society, al-Banna skillfully relied on pre-existing social networks, in particular those built around mosques, Islamic welfare associations and neighborhood groups. This weaving of traditional ties into a distinctively modern structure was at the root of his success. (9)

The bottom line is that the Muslim Brotherhood’s success could not have been achieved without the approval of the British ruling establishment, and al-Banna’s association with the Masonic Brotherhood goes far to explain how efficiently it was organized and how seamlessly it fit into Egyptian society. Like the Masonic Brotherhood it was established initially as a charitable organization. However, while Freemasonry was liberal and allowed members of all faiths to join, the Muslim Brotherhood was focused specifically on Islam. It was Masonry for Muslims only. Like Masonry the Muslim Brotherhood was devoted to secrecy and it was run according to a pyramidal command structure. The foot soldiers at the bottom had no idea of the true goals of the leaders at the top.

The Muslim Brotherhood was established with the approval and the support of the British establishment, but such a popular mass movement proved hard to control. The Egyptian people harbored a deep anti-British resentment, and this feeling inevitably dominated the Muslim Brotherhood. It ceased to be solely a charitable and religious organization in the late 1930s when it entered the realm of politics to support the Palestinian Arab uprising against the British and the increasing influx of Jewish immigrants. Anti-British activity soon began to pick up within the Brotherhood back at home, and early in World War II al-Banna was briefly imprisoned by the pro-British regime for allowing his organization to get out of hand.

After World War II ended al-Banna found that he was one of the most powerful leaders in Egypt. He found himself in a struggle for power against the monarchy and the secular Wafd party, and his organization was seen as the most militant, the most radical and the most dangerous. In 1948 members of the Muslim Brotherhood were implicated in the assassination of the police chief of Cairo and the government retaliated when Prime Minister Nuqrashi Pasha issued a proclamation in December of 1948 dissolving the Muslim Brotherhood.

Its headquarters and branches were shut down and its assets and funds were seized. Hundreds of members were arrested and incarcerated and the Muslim Brotherhood was driven underground. Weeks later Nuqrashi Pasha was assassinated by the Brotherhood, and then on February 12, 1949 Hassan al-Banna was himself assassinated by Egypt’s secret police.

In May of 1950 the government tried to reconcile with the Brotherhood and released most of the captured members from prison. The next year the ban on the Brotherhood was repealed, but it was forced to maintain itself under a new law passed to regulate the many different Egyptian societies, groups and organizations.

As the monarchy continued to decline in popularity, moving way too slowly to break away from Britain for the public’s liking, two subversive groups schemed behind the scenes to control Egypt’s destiny: the Free Officers and the Muslim Brotherhood, the army and the fundamentalists. The army proved to have the upper hand, especially after the death of al-Banna, and Nasser finally emerged as the man to lead Egypt on an independent path. At first the Brotherhood supported the army and attempts were made to include them in the new government, but the Brotherhood over-estimated its strength and influence and demanded too much.

Then after Nasser won his power struggle with General Naguib the Brotherhood knew that it faced a tough future. Nasser was far less understanding of the fundamentalists than was Naguib and the break became complete after the Brotherhood attempted to assassinate Nasser in October of 1954. Many years later the deposed and embittered General Naguib claimed in his memoirs that the assassination was a sting operation planned by Nasser to make an excuse to do away with the troublesome Brotherhood once and for all. (10)

In any case, by the end of 1954 thousands of Brotherhood members were imprisoned, including almost all of its leaders, and six were executed. It was this break that paved the way for a new relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the intelligence services of Britain and America because all of them were united in their hatred of Nasser. Unfortunately for the West the Brotherhood remained largely ineffective within Egypt throughout Nasser’s reign, even though they were involved in several more attempts on his life. During this time many fleeing members were welcomed in London, where they set up a presence that remains to this day, and a number of them also relocated in Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Hasan al-Banna created an organization described by Arab historians as “the greatest modern Islamic movement.” Al-Banna was known to say,

“We need three generations for our plans – one to listen, one to fight, and one to win.” (11)

He died young at the age of 43. His was the “listening” generation, but he was the speaker. After his premature death several other leaders emerged to continue to instruct the believers within militant fundamentalist Islam.

One of them was a man by the name of Sayed Qutb. He eventually became recognized as the “chief ideologist” of the Muslim Brotherhood after al-Banna, and his extensive writings justify the beliefs of radical Islamists today. Muslims rarely take the radical path of Islam without reading something written by Qutb.

Sayed Qutb was the same age as al-Banna, and also a Freemason, but he did not even join the Brotherhood until after al-Banna’s death. He had become critical of the West after living in the United States for a time and when he returned to Egypt he embraced fundamentalism. He advanced within the Brotherhood very quickly and served as their ambassador in Syria and Jordan before becoming the editor of the Brotherhood’s official periodical in 1954.

However, upon the “assassination attempt” of Nasser he was arrested with many of his compatriots, cruelly tortured and then sentenced to fifteen years in a labor camp. One year later a representative from Nasser offered him amnesty if he would but ask for forgiveness. Qutb refused and remained in prison, studying and writing on Islam’s role in the modern world. He developed the doctrine that according to Islam, modern Arab states such as Egypt are overrun by Jahiliyyah, which is a term translated as barbarity, primarily pertaining to the influence of Western culture and political systems.

Qutb wrote,

“It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system… It derives its system and laws and regulations and habits and standards and values from a source other than Allah. On the other hand, Islam is submission to Allah, and its function is to bring people away from Jahiliyyah towards Islam.

Jahiliyyah is the worship of some people by others; that is to say, some people become dominant and make laws for others, regardless of whether these laws are against Allah’s injunctions and without caring for the use or misuse of their authority. Islam, on the other hand, is people’s worshipping Allah alone, and deriving concepts and beliefs, laws and regulations from the authority of Allah, and freeing themselves from the servitude to Allah’s servants.

This is the very nature of Islam and the nature of its role on earth. Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah. Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah; no half-half situation is possible. Command belongs to Allah, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; Allah’s Shari’ah will prevail, or else people’s desires…” (12)

Qutb believed that Arab states governed by anything other than Islamic Shariah law were compromised by Jahiliyyah, and he advocated the violent use of force to overthrow political systems, especially Nasser’s regime in Egypt, in order to eradicate Jahiliyyah. Qutb wrote, “The foremost duty of Islam is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man.” (13)

In 1964 Qutb was pardoned and released at the insistence of the visiting Iraqi head of state. Qutb then published perhaps his most important work, a book entitled Milestones. Nasser used the militant language within the book as an excuse to incarcerate Qutb once again. At the same time, fearful of a re-organized Brotherhood plot against his regime, Nasser rounded up 20,000 other suspected Brotherhood members as well. On August 29, 1966 Nasser made an example out of Sayed Qutb and executed him by hanging.

Over the course of Sayed Qutb’s life he published 24 books, as well as a 30-volume commentary of the Koran. Today his work inspires fundamentalist Muslims within Egypt and around the world and his life is held up as an excellent Islamic example of how to carry oneself in the face of persecution and hardship.

Another of the “speakers” for the first generation of revolutionary Islamist militants was Mustafa al-Sibai. He was born in Syria and educated at the preeminent Islamic university of Al-Azhar in Cairo, Egypt. It was there that he became involved with the Muslim Brotherhood. He was imprisoned for a time by the British, and then after he returned to Syria he was arrested and imprisoned again for his constant revolutionary activities, this time by the French. In 1946, after serving his sentence, Mustafa al-Sibai formed the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria as a branch subordinate to the Egyptian base.

Al-Sibai’s career in Syria was eventually quite successful. He completed his doctorate in Islamic law and began teaching Arabic and religion in Damascus. In 1951 he married into a powerful Damascus family. He traveled throughout the West, published books, gave lectures and helped to direct the Muslim Brotherhood until his death in 1964.(14) Al-Sibai was one of the most articulate spokesmen of the Islamic movement and he had a great understanding of what was happening in the Middle East. In one of his many articles he wrote about Western business interests in Arab lands:

They are the direct reason for foreign intervention into the domestic matters of the country and are the great obstacle toward the realization of independence and dignity. On the one hand, the [oil] concessions are the legacy from the Turks; on the other hand, the concessions were granted under the veiled assertion that it would be economically good for the country and the people. But history has shown that such firms constitute the beginning of colonialism. (15)

The father of Pakistan’s Islamic movement is considered to be Abul Ala Maududi. Born in 1903 he first achieved influence in 1937 when he became the director of the Islamic Institute of Research in Lahore. When Pakistan was made a nation in 1948 he objected to the secular nature of the British-sponsored government and for this he served time in jail in 1948 and again in 1952. Maududi’s lasting achievement, along with his eighty published books and brochures, is his organization Jamaat-e Islami, or Islamic Society. Maududi and his group maintained close links with the Muslim Brotherhood and Dietl writes that,

“Both organizations still consider themselves branches of the same movement. At times the Muslim Brotherhood even recognized Maududi as the legal successor to its ideologists al-Banna and Sayed Qutb.” (16)

Maududi is well known for his articulation of the ideal Islamic state, and his definition is accepted by the majority of Muslims within the militant Islamist movement. In the following passage he comments on democracy,

The difference between Islamic democracy and Western democracy is, of course, the following: while the latter is based on the conception of the sovereignty of the people, the former is based on the principle of the caliphate [leadership] by the people. In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam, sovereignty rests with God, and the people are his caliphs or subjects. In the West the people themselves make the law; in Islam the people must follow and obey the laws that God communicated through his prophets.

In one system the government carries out the will of the people; in the other the government and people together must translate God’s intentions into deeds. In short, Western democracy is a kind of absolute authority that exerts its power freely and in an uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is subject to the divine law and exerts its authority in harmony with the commands of God and within the framework established by God. (17)

The last of the revolutionary Islamic ideologists that we will focus on is an Iranian by the name of Ali Shariati. Here is another concrete connection between the Islamic movement and Freemasonry, because Ali Shariati was himself a Mason. His father, Muhammad Taqi Shariati, was a Mason as well who was also, at least at one time, an agent for the far eastern division of British Intelligence. (18)

Ali Shariati was born in 1934. He went to school in Mashad and grew up in the shadow of his father who led a revolutionary Islamic center called the Center for the Propagation of Islamic Truth. After Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown and the Shah took over Ali Shariati joined the National Resistance Movement. In 1957 he was arrested with his father and a handful of other activists and spent six months in prison.

The Shariati family had powerful friends in high places and Ali was accepted to the prestigious Sorbonne University in France. He began his studies there in 1960, receiving a doctorate in sociology and Islamic history. While in France he was exposed to, and captivated by, a group of elitist intellectuals known as the Existentialists. This was a group of anti-capitalist and anti-materialist writers that included Jean-Paul Sartre, Frantz Fanon, Albert Camus, Jacques Berque, Louis Massignon and Jean Cocteau. Shariati also developed a fine appreciation for many Marxist ideas.

Shariati returned to Iran in 1965 and was immediately arrested. He was known to have been involved with groups that sought to overthrow the Shah while he was in France, and he had helped to create the Iranian National Front for Europe. However he was immediately released, and he subsequently took up a teaching job near Mashad. For the next five years he focused on writing, promoting his view of Islam and cultivating ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and other resistance groups.

In the early 1970s Dr. Shariati began to give lectures on politics and religion, publicly promoting his writings and pushing his views that were diametrically opposite to those of the Shah, who was developing industrial infrastructure, advancing economic development and advocating modern secular education. Shariati wrote,

“Come friends, let us abandon Europe, let us cease this nauseating, apish imitation of Europe. Let us leave behind this Europe that always speaks of humanity but destroys human beings wherever it finds them.” (19)

Ayatollah Khomeini would have never been successful were it not for Shariati’s constant agitation against the Shah, done under an intellectual guise and focused on the students and fundamentalists of Iran. For a time Shariati was considered the most influential speaker in Tehran’s forums. Dietl writes,

Shariati’s importance shows that the Iranian revolution was fostered not only by the old mullahs and ayatollahs, but also by agitated youth who to some extent were influenced by other models.

As many as 5,000 listeners attended the public lectures given by Shariati. His writings were distributed in the hundreds of thousands, although arrest and torture were the penalty for owning them. Often, the modest, quiet Shariati spoke all day and then held discussions late into the night. After he had given more than 100 lectures, SAVAK [secret police] tried to arrest him, but Shariati escaped; he gave himself up to the police only after they had seized his father as hostage. For two years he was gruesomely tortured in Komiteh prison. After his release he was not permitted to indulge in any teaching activities or to maintain any conspiratorial contacts. The secret police followed every move. (20)

Finally in 1976 Ali Shariati was able to make an escape to London and there while waiting to catch a plane to meet up with members of his family in the Untied States he died of a brain embolism. The usual allegation, now almost universally accepted, is that SAVAK agents assassinated Shariati with the use of a poison needle dart dipped in cobra poison. The fact remains that although the Shah hated Dr. Shariati and the repressive philosophies he advocated the cause of Shariati’s brain embolism has never been proven.

Hasan al-Banna predicted three generations before the Islamic movement would take over the Middle East. He said that the first generation would demand “listeners” and he, Sayed Qutb, Mustafa al-Sibai, Abul Ala Maududi, and Ali Shariati were a few of the most prominent strategists laying the ideological groundwork for the modern Islamist movement. The next generation was predicted by al-Banna to be a generation for “fighting.”

Sources
Holy War, Wilhelm Dietl, 1983
Hostage To Khomeini, Robert Dreyfuss, 1980 (available here online in .pdf format)

Notes
1. Biography of Hasan al-Banna
2. Freemasonry In Egypt, Insight Magazine, March 1, 1999
3. Biography of Jamal al-Afghani
4. Biography of Mohammed Abduh
5. Commentary from Shaykh Abdul Hadi of the Italian Muslim Association
6. Excerpt from “The Return of the Khalifate” by Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi
7. Biography of Hasan al-Banna; Dietl, p. 26; Dreyfuss, p. 139-140
8. Commentary from Shaykh Abdul Hadi of the Italian Muslim Association
8a. Dreyfuss, p. 143
9. Biography of Hasan al-Banna
10. Dietl, p. 56
11. Dietl, p. 32
12. Excerpt from “The Right To Judge,” by Sayed Qutb
13. Excerpt from “The Right To Judge,” by Sayed Qutb
14. Dietl, pp.37-39
15. Dietl, p. 38
16. Dietl, p. 42
17. Dietl, p. 43
18. Dreyfuss, pp. 106-108 (excerpt); What Really Happened In Iran, Dr. John Coleman, 1984, p. 24 (1-800-942-0821)
19. Dreyfuss, pp. 106-108
20. Dietl, p. 45

Uncovered Muslim Brotherhood Documents Could Put Obama in Prison


Uncovered Muslim Brotherhood Documents Could Put Obama in Prison

by Kris Zane

In early 2012, Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohammed Morsi pranced around Egypt proclaiming “Jihad is our path,” and thought there was nothing better than to die in the cause of Allah – that is, the exact language used by terrorists!

Despite this, Barack Obama gushed on national television after Morsi was elected President of Egypt.

And oddly – or not so oddly – Obama continued to gush over Morsi while reports surfaced that the Muslim Brotherhood were setting up torture chambers for their political enemies, not to mention openly crucifying Christians!

When Morsi was deposed, the Egyptian military discovered a treasure trove of documents linking the Obama regime with the illegal activities of the Muslim Brotherhood.

One such document is a list of Muslim Brotherhood officials receiving secret bribes in U.S. currency, paid out by the U.S. consulate, amounting to millions of dollars.

Investigative journalist Jerome Corsi has obtained a copy of the document held by the Egyptian military, proving the Obama regime sent millions of dollars in bribes to the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • But who was managing all of this money?

  • Did the Muslim Brotherhood walk around with hundreds of thousands of dollars in their pockets?

Enter Malik Obama, Obama’s half brother.

According to Egyptian television, citing the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt:

The President’s brother…is one of the architects of the major investments of the Muslim Brotherhood.

We’re not just talking about the bribes the Muslim Brotherhood received in Egypt, but the entire Muslim Brotherhood finances – worldwide – that more than likely included an astounding $8 billion dollar bribe to the Muslim Brotherhood made by the Obama regime.

The bribe was payment to guarantee that the huge tract of Egyptian land, the Sinai Peninsula, be turned over to the Muslim Brotherhood sister group Hamas, undoubtedly to put Israel in an indefensible position. The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas mince no words about their goals for Israel: total annihilation.

According to Egypt Daily News, a document exists showing the eight billion dollar  “holocaust” agreement with the Obama administration that was signed by former Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi and his second in command Khairat Al-Shater, both under arrest by the Egyptian military for murder and treason.

Does this document really exist, showing the $8 billion dollar bribe signed by Obama or one of his representatives?

Undoubtedly.

According to Khairat Al-Shater’s son, Saad Al-Shater, prior to being arrested by the Egyptian military, his father was in possession of information linking Obama with the Muslim Brotherhood that he says would put Obama in prison.

As reported by a multitude of Arabic news sources:

In an interview with the Anatolia News Agency, Saad Al-Shater, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader, the detained Khairat Al-Shater said that his father had in his hand evidence that will land the head of United States of America, President Obama, in prison.

If the Egyptian military releases this document, it would no doubt spell the end of the Obama presidency, bringing impeachment, a long prison term, and perhaps even the death penalty.


Evidence U.S. Bribed…

Muslim Brotherhood Officials
by Jerome R. Corsi
August 24, 2013

from WND Website

 

 

Document surfaces ahead of

criminal trial of ousted leaders

 

Official Morsi government document:

“Direction of Grants and Gifts for 2013,”

submitted by Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabor Al Thani,

former Qatari prime minister and foreign affairs minister

 A question apparently being raised in next week’s trial in Cairo of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders facing criminal charges is this:

Was the Obama administration paying bribes as large as $850,000 a year to the Morsi government that were distributed by top ministerial level officials to Muslim Brotherhood leaders, with the direct involvement of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo?

WND is in possession of an official document from inside the Morsi government that lends credibility to a report published in Arabic by an Egyptian newspaper in Cairo that lists the charges brought by the current military-controlled government against Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

As seen above, WND has obtained official records from the deposed Morsi government in Egypt, with signatures, documenting monthly “gifts” paid to Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt by the former prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar, Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al Thani.

The document was seized from Egyptian government offices in Cairo when the Morsi government was deposed by the military July 3.

As translated by former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, the monthly “gifts” listed in the document amount to bribes paid by the Morsi government to leading Muslim Brotherhood members in Egypt, including an annual payment of $750,000 to $850,000 in U.S. dollars.

Shoebat explained to WND the names listed on the Egyptian government document correspond to information the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon has just published in Egypt reporting that the Cairo district attorney’s office has begun investigating alleged bribes the U.S. has paid through its embassy in Cairo to the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to the newspaper:

“A judicial source stated that the Attorney General Hisham Barakat received during the past few days a number of filed complaints accusing the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and leaders of the centrist party of receiving bribes thinly disguised as ‘gifts’ paid through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

The sources of the complaint stated that among those receiving bribes paid in U.S. dollars from the U.S. include:

  • Mohamed Badie, general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood

  • Khairat Al-Shater, deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and businessman

  • Mohamed Beltagy, the deputy head of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party in Egypt, and the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood group, Essam el-Erian

  • Abu Ela Mady, head of the Wasat Party

  • Essam Sultan, deputy head of the Wasat Party

“What this document suggests,” Shoebot explained to WND, “is that the report the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon published in Cairo may be correct in that it appears the U.S. government was paying monthly bribes in U.S. dollars, with payments as large as $85,000 a month, to top Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, with the money being passed from the United States through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the Morsi government.”

Shoebat stressed to WND that the signatures seen in the document mean it could be used as evidence in the upcoming trials of key Muslim Brotherhood leaders, slated to begin Aug. 25 in Cairo.

Shoebat also noted that the names listed in the document match the names in the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon, including Mohamed Beltagy.

Reading closely the Almesryoon report, Shoebat concluded the document is likely to be among the evidence the current government of Egypt plans to introduce in its prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

The charges being brought in Cairo next week include not only bribes being taken in U.S. dollars from the U.S. Embassy, but also murders and assassinations, prison escapes, sniping at and the indiscriminate killing of demonstrators, and spying or being a double-agent collaborating with foreign governments, including both the U.S. and Qatar.

“The criminal charge being reported against the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo suggest these are major trials about to start,” Shoebat explained to WND.

“And with government documents entered into evidence, like the one WND is publishing, the criminal charges will likely be construed as capital offenses, with death by hanging the likely sentence.”

The Obama administration’s call for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt is inexplicable.

The trip to Egypt by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during which they called for the same thing is even more inexplicable, especially since both men are demanding answers in Benghazi.

Yes, we know Obama’s leanings but why the rush to release these prisoners and not shine a spotlight on them? If the details of an interview with the son of one of those imprisoned leaders is any indication, we may be getting closer to answering that question.

Saad Al-Shater: My father has the goods on Obama

 

We caution that the following be taken with a grain of salt but considering who said it, we thought it newsworthy too.

Here is a direct translation of the key points, followed by some analysis:

In an interview with the Anatolia News Agency, Saad Al-Shater, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader, the detained Khairat Al-Shater, said that his father had in his hand evidence that will land the head of United States of America, president Obama, in prison.

He stressed that the senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt, knows full well that the fate, future, interests and reputation of their country is in the hands of his father, and they know that he owns the information, documents and recordings that incriminate and would condemn their country.

Such documents, he says, were placed in the hands of people who were entrusted inside and outside Egypt, and that the release of his father is the only way for them to prevent a great catastrophe. He stated that a warning was sent threatening to show how the U.S. administration was directly connected.

The evidence was sent through intermediaries which caused them to change their attitude and corrected their position and that they have taken serious steps to prove good faith.

Saad also said that his father’s safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mohammed Mursi.

Khairat Al-Shater: Does he have the goods on Obama?

 

That this interview happened and the younger Al-Shater made these claims is backed up by at least six Arabic sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

When Saad’s comments are viewed in the context of the bizarre behavior of U.S. officials, it provides the best explanation to date for extremely irrational and inexplicable behavior of those officials.

First, the interview with Saad was dated August 7, 2013.

The reference made to “senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt” is presumably a reference to McCain, Graham, and Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns.

During that trip, McCain and Graham both called for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders with McCain making news by calling Mursi’s ouster a “coup”. Graham suggested that Egypt was “looking into the abyss” and then suggested releasing Brotherhood leaders was the path away from it (huh?).

In an interview with CNN, McCain named Al-Shater specifically when asked about individuals that could negotiate a future Egyptian government.

 

McCain and Graham: Schizophrenia or self-preservation?

In what may be an effort to play both sides of the fence, Graham was one of eight Congressional Republicans who sent a letter to incoming FBI Director James Comey, just days before Graham went to Egypt.

That letter demanded more answers over what happened in Benghazi. Such a demand, coupled with his call for the release of individuals who, probable cause suggests, should be investigated over Benghazi is beyond curious; it’s schizophrenic.

The two Senators were clearly throwing bones to the Brotherhood. Such behavior makes no sense. It would, however, if Saad Al-Shater is telling the truth; it would also eliminate schizophrenia as a cause.

Second, how about Saad’s claim that his father’s safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mursi? This is where we’d like to introduce Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns.

While Graham and McCain were busy sucking up to the Brotherhood in Egypt, Burns visited one of its leaders in prison.

Bill Burns: Met with Khairat Al-Shater for 90 Minutes

He didn’t visit Mursi; Burns visited Al-Shater.

Reports put that visit at about 90 minutes, despite attempts by both parties to play the visit down.

As we reported in EXHIBIT A-1 of Addendum A, Al-Shater is implicated in weapons trafficking through the Sinai and into Gaza as well as negotiating prisoner releases in exchange for terrorists. He has also been jailed multiple times.

Again,

  • Why would the United States’ #2 diplomat traipse over to Egypt to talk with a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader?

  • And why Al-Shater?

We can’t answer those questions but we can say that Saad Al-Shater’s alleged charges make more sense than the behavior of U.S. officials.

Of course, State Department ventriloquist dummy Jen Psaki called for the release of Mursi last month:

UPDATE on August 13, 2013 at 6:30pm EST


We’ve received feedback from more than one person who doesn’t like our including the “take it with a grain of salt” line in this post.

Just to clarify… We have no doubt that Saad Al-Shater interviewed with Anatolia News Agency and said what he said. In fact, that’s the main reason we decided to post about it.

We’re simply cautious when relying on the veracity of a witness who happens to be the son of a terrorist and who supports his father’s ideology.

We stand by the sourcing.

UPDATE on August 19, 2013 at 8:15pm EST


Due to being unable to independently confirm that Anatolia News Agency actually interviewed Al-Shater, we are issuing a disclaimer.

We stand by our translation and we initially felt somewhat confident reporting this because so many Arabic sources reported it as well. However, with no original source available, we would like to make clear that any of the aforementioned claims attributed to Saad Al-Shater cannot be confirmed.