The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy

The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy


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 “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.

When the truth will out There may be more to Benghazi than officialdom wants to uncover

When the truth will out There may be more to Benghazi than officialdom wants to uncover

What if American Weapons Killed in Benghazi Illustration by Greg Groesch

What if American Weapons Killed in Benghazi Illustration by Greg Groesch

It took four whole years for Washington Times to realise the obvious, we have been shouting on deaf ears for the last four and half years.

Of-course we are not so prominent journalists we are plain people who fight with what ever means we have against the Western media either by blogging, or twitting, or Facebook, or YouTube which ever means available risking prosecution from the militias and gangs who do not like what we say….. If anyone of you readers have been following me since August 2011 you will see that what Andrew Napolitano is writing here below we have said it over and over but no one listened or if they did they are taking our articles and owning them without giving any credit to all Libyan brothers and sisters who have stopped everything in their lives and are working without pay to try to get the truth out….All bloggers and I, do not need their recognition or their congratulation the only thing I can say better late than never……

These internet-newspapers are the same who sold you the war in Libya and Syria! They are the ones who have blood on their hands for having millions killed in Libya and Syria, they are the ones who I hold responsible for Libyans and Syrians that have become refugees. They are the same people who wrote that Qaddafi and Assad are dictators and they must go…. They are the ones responsible that Qaddafi was BRUTALLY MURDERED and made viral the video of his EXECUTION.

It’s not only the American foreign policy or the Cabal mafia who are responsible but also the WESTERN MEDIA which are the LAP DOGS of their own government. They should not be called JOURNALISTS but CRIMINALS FOR HIRE AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED THE SAME AS MASS MURDERERS.

As for the Benghazi Committee their only goal is to clear the CIA and nothing else… they do not want the REAL truth… every single one in the Benghazi Committee have their own agenda and the TRUTH IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

As for Russia and China they are paying a high price for not Vetoing the no flight zone in Libya… 



By Andrew P. Napolitano – June 17, 2015

What if President Obama secretly agreed with others in the government in 2011 to provide arms to rebels in Libya and Syria? What if the scheme called for American arms merchants to sell serious American military hardware to the government of Qatar, which would and did transfer it to rebel groups? What if the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of the Treasury approved those sales?
What if the approvals were kept secret because some of those rebel groups were characterized by the same Departments of State and Treasury as terrorist organizations? What if the ultimate recipients of those arms were the militants and monsters in al Qaeda and ISIS who have slain and tortured innocents?
What if this scheme is defined in federal law as providing material assistance to terrorist organizations? What if that’s a felony? What if that’s the same felony for which the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted dozens of persons merely for attempting? What if this scheme was not a mere attempt, but an actual arming of terrorists?
What if this scheme was approved not only by the president, but also by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton? What if the idea of doing this was hers? What if congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and from both parties signed off on this? What if the remaining members of Congress and the American people were kept in the dark about this scheme? What if those who agreed to permit this scheme knew that the arms were destined for terrorist organizations and they were flirting with a criminal conspiracy to violate federal law?
What if Mrs. Clinton was asked by senators while under oath about the delivery of arms made by American manufacturers to ports in the Middle East and she denied knowing anything about it? What if she knew she had personally approved the deliveries but falsely claimed she had no knowledge?
What if this arms-to-terrorists scheme began to unravel? What if the rebels were really bad guys? What if there are many rebel-terrorist groups with varying degrees of hatred for the United States? What if some of the groups that received American arms are so hateful of the United States that they will bite the hands that fed them?

What if Clinton’s job was to prevent American arms from slipping into the hands of terrorists? What if she secretly did the opposite of what her job required? What if she and the president and the other conspirators viewed themselves as being above the law? What if they thought the terrorist groups they were arming would overthrow the Gadhafi government in Libya and the Assad government in Syria? What if they believed those revolutions would be greeted with cheers in the West? What if they hoped the cheers would be for them?
What if their goal of regime change succeeded in Libya, and yet the result was chaos? What if under Col. Moammar Gadhafi, Libya had been a stable U.S. ally? What if today there is no central government in Libya and it is ruled by gangs and tribes and militias?
What if the American assistance to Syrian rebels became known to the Russians? What if that knowledge prompted Russian President Putin to help his ally, President Bashar Assad of Syria? What if the American and Russian introduction of heavy military hardware into the Syrian civil war has resulted in prolonged war and more deaths of innocents and destruction of property, not less?
What if one of the terrorist groups that received American arms from this scheme attacked the American consulate in Benghazi, because it wanted more arms from the United States and it knew arms were stored there? What if that attack killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues? What if this was a nightmare scenario for the conspirators? What if the conspirators now fear that the truth of their plot will become known?
What if the tragedy at Benghazi was unwelcome but not unforeseen? What if the conspirators knew of the risks to innocent lives attendant upon breaking the law by giving arms to madmen? What if members of Congress who were kept in the dark about the arms-to-terrorists scheme were outraged over Benghazi? What if leaders of the House of Representatives, some of whom were conspirators, formed a committee to investigate how the murder of Stevens came about?
What if some members of that committee already know that Stevens and the others were murdered with U.S. weapons illegally given to U.S. enemies secretly by U.S. government officials? What if the stated purpose of the committee — to seek the truth about Benghazi — is not the true purpose? What if the real purpose of that committee is to suppress the truth so that the president and Mrs. Clinton and the other conspirators do not get indicted? What if the truth is the last thing the conspirators want to see come out?
What do we do about lawless government by secrecy? What do we do about government officials who act as if they are above the law? What do we do if one of them lives in the White House and controls all federal prosecutions? What do we do if another of them is presently on her way there?

Investigative Project on Terrorism “THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD”

Investigative Project on Terrorism


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
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.

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, (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.


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
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,” (Accessed June 9,
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
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

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
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
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
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
(Accessed June 10, 2008).

“reviving the will of liberation and independence in the people, and sowing the spirit of
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
– “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,
(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
“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
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,
(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, (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

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
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, (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
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
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 Masonic Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahabis

The Masonic Origins of the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahabis

by ArabianAlanis

from YouTube Website


The Masonic origins of the Islamists movements, and their true goal to undermine Islam and fight for Western Zionist Powers such as Britain and the United States of America.

The Muslim Brotherhood has acted as a clever technique to recruit agent-provocateurs for the Illuminati. The lowest ranks may sincerely believe they are defending Islam, and confronting “Western imperialism”. However, these various terrorist groups, through representing different factions, are part of a single network serving the same Illuminati cause.

When we explore the political and financial connections of the terrorists, we find that these are not merely wayward fanatics, operating in isolation, but that their channels penetrate to the upper reaches of power, in the British and American governments, and outward into the nether regions of the occult and criminal underworlds

The real Muslim Brothers are those whose hands are never dirtied with the business of killing and burning.

The Muslim Brotherhood are the secretive bankers and financiers who stand behind the curtain, the members of the old Arab, Turkish, or Persian families whose genealogy places them in the oligarchical elite, with smooth business and intelligence associations to the European Black Nobility and, especially, to the British oligarchy

And the Muslim Brotherhood is money.

 Together, the Brotherhood probably controls several tens of billions of dollars in immediate liquid assets, and controls billions more in day-to-day business operations in everything from oil trade and banking to drug-running, illegal arms merchandising, and gold and diamond smuggling.

 By allying with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Anglo-Americans are not merely buying into a terrorists-for-hire racket; they are partners in a powerful and worldwide financial empire that extends from numbered Swiss bank accounts to offshore havens in Dubai, Kuwait and Hong Kong.

It’s Ok, Everyone, Nusra Says Nusra Won’t Hurt Us

It’s Ok, Everyone, Nusra Says Nusra Won’t Hurt Us

By Brandon Turbeville

Al-Nusra Front has taken to the airwaves with a message for all Westerners and Americans in particular – they really aren’t that bad. And there are no plans to attack Americans. They are just your friendly neighborhood terrorist organization, funded handsomely by the West and the GCC, raping and beheading their way across the Middle East. There’s nothing to worry about so long as the US allows them to continue to rape little girls, cut off heads, impose savage Sharia law, and eat the hearts and livers of the occasional dissident.

This message was brought to you by the feudal monarchy of Qatar and its mouthpiece organization, Al-Jazeera and conducted with a journalist whose past is checkered with a conviction of supporting al-Qaeda.

The alleged leader of al-Nusra Front, Abu Mohammed al-Julani, appeared on al-Jazeera with a setting fit for a king (or Emir *ahem*) to discuss Nusra’s plans for Syria and the West. The man alleging to be Julani and alleging to be the leader of Nusra, despite claiming to be “fearless,” sat with his face covered and his back to the camera. The set was ornately decorated and almost appeared to be some type of palace room or high government building.

Julani reassured Westerners that he had been ordered by another alleged leader, this time of al-Qaeda proper, Ayman al-Zawihiri, not to launch attacks against the West as this would jeopardize the mission in Syria.

A New York Times report cited a US intelligence official as saying that Julani’s statements were merely self-serving propaganda.

Propaganda? Yes. Self-serving? Not exactly. Julani’s statements were actually serving NATO, the US, and Israel in their own propaganda efforts to assure the American people that supporting the so-called “rebels” in Syria is a good idea and one that will not come back to bite them.

Indeed, Julani truly spoke like a paid actor or a professional trained talking monkey in his job as message delivery boy. Obviously, neither designation would set him clearly apart from any other “expert” or “reporter” in the Western/Gulf media propaganda establishment.

Still, the “fearless” hijabed Julani stated, “We are only here to accomplish one mission, to fight the regime and its agents on the ground, including Hezbollah and others. Al-Nusra Front doesn’t have any plans or directives to target the West. We received clear orders not to use Syria as a launching pad to attack the US or Europe in order to not sabotage the true mission against the regime. Maybe al-Qaeda does that, but not here in Syria.”

The only true part of his statement was that Khorosan, painted as the end of the Western world and enemy #1 for a total of about five days, was a fictional organization invented by the Americans to deceive and frighten the American public.

His presentation of al-Qaeda and al-Nusra Front as different organizations, however, is ludicrous, since Nusra was merely the Syrian version of al-Qaeda proper before the two groups were largely united by the shadowy Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and renamed the Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant, later to be renamed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIS, and IS. Of course, all incarnations of the group were entirely organized, funded, and armed by the United States, NATO, and GCC.

Julani also stated that Nusra would not harm Christians or Druze who refused to fight against it and that the even the Alawites would be spared if they would refuse to fight, reject Assad, and give up their religious beliefs and convert to Sunnism.

Of course, this is disingenuous to say the least. The “opposition” in Syria was famous for screaming “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave!” as far back as 2011 when the crisis first began. Alawites have long been targeted by the so-called “rebels” from the start. Regardless, for the likes of the “moderate rebels,” no Muslim – even Sunni – is ever Muslim enough, unless he practices the Wahhabist filth that is labeled Islamic by its proponents and psychopathic adherents.

The reality of the situation is that Julani’s statements are nothing more than Western intelligence propaganda foisted upon the brains of the Western public in an effort to gin up support for the savages now bearing down on Latakia Syria as I write this article.

Of course, Nusra and al-Qaeda will still be played up as a threat to the US here at home. After all, there are a few straggler civil liberties ambling about that still need to be corralled and destroyed.