Egypt??

I hope GB's predictions don't come true.....it's a bummer that they too often do.



The Muslim Brotherhood, also known by it's Arabic title "Ikhwan", is now active in over 80 countries around the world. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate). Therefore, Al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives. They differ only in the timing and tactics involved in realizing them.

The Brotherhood’s creed is: “God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihadis our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."


Thanks to the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, it is now public knowledge that nearly every major Muslim organization in the United States is actually controlled by the MB or a derivative organization.
Consequently, most of the Muslim-American groups of any prominence in America are now known to be, as a matter of fact, hostile to the United States and its Constitution.

The Ikhwan’s mission in the West is sedition in the furtherance of shariah’s supremacist agenda, not peaceful assimilation and co-existence with non-Muslim populations.

http://europenews.dk/files/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20%28Team%20B%20Report%29%2009142010.pdf


Kamel El-Helbawy
"A new era of freedom and democracy is dawning in the Middle East and Arab world," Helbawy, an influential cleric in the international Islamist ideological movement.

"That's more important than declaring that a 'new Islamist era is dawning', because I know Islamists would not be able to rule Egypt alone. We should and would cooperate -- Muslims, leftists, communists, socialists, secularists."


Muhammad Ghannem, leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.”
He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”




Civilization Jihadist Process”

Phases of stealth jihad.

Phase One: Phase of discreet and secret establishment of leadership.

Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities (It greatly succeeded in implementing this stage). It also succeeded in achieving a great deal of its important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the Government, gaining religious institutions and embracing senior scholars. Gaining public support and sympathy. Establishing a shadow government (secret) within the Government.

Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. (Currently in progress).

Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. (It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach). Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. (It has noticeable activities in this regard.)

Phase Five: Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.
 
Last edited:
Sad isn't it.


This link has been posted on other threads before but it is pretty interesting given what's going on.

We can spend plenty of cash but it is readily apparent that no one there is listening to what the US says. That fact not only makes us irrevelant but foolish also.

I think they would listen if we had something meaningful or forceful to say. All this him hawing around makes us appear weak.

honestly I would love to support the Egyptian people, and send a message to all of the other autocratic governments in the region that if your people want to kick you out, we will help, so get your sh*t straight.
 

Phase Five: Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.


I don't have any issue with the Muslim Brotherhood.

They have so far been committed to non violent means, they denounced al quada and the terrorist attacks.

Whether or not we can trust them on the face of it is cause for concern, but you are talking about educated people running that organization, not the extremists.

And honestly, are their goals any different than our founding fathers'? They wanted to unite all of the people in the colonies, push our boundaries to the west and create "one nation under God" afterall.
 
INSIDE THE MIND OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

By Walid Shoebat

2/2/2011

PREPARE, [Wa-a-iddou] is a single Arabic word which appears on the Egyptian based Muslim Brotherhood’s logo written under the sign of the two swords, the symbol of Islamic Jihad. “Prepare” actually comes from the Quranic verse:

“Prepare against them as you are able of force and cavalry to terrorize Allah’s enemy and yours…” (Al-Anfal:60)

Warfare and terror is their motto. It started when many Egyptians were angered at Arabia’s collaboration with the West in the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, especially since the Caliphate fell with it. That dismantling was the primary reason the Muslim Brotherhood was created four years later in 1928; its sole purpose was the resurrection of the Caliphate. They made inroads, especially after the failure of Arab Nationalism; the Brotherhood gave birth to the slogan “Al-Islam-Huwa-Alhal” [Islam is The Solution] which became their main slogan.

The Brotherhood even adapted and learned from the Al-Qaeda experience as well as the revolution in Iran, which contributed to a bad image of Islam in the West. Despite this, many Arabs envy Iran’s success, especially since it grew in influence, becoming a formidable power in the region after the fall of Iraq, influencing Syria, Lebanon and the Arab Gulf states, creating a Shiite horn that extended from Iran, west through Iraq and Syria into Lebanon with its tip pointing at Israel’s head. Iran wants to dominate the Middle East to emerge as a mini-super power in the region. What we now see forming as a result of the latest unrest in Tunisia and Egypt is the beginning pieces of another puzzle – another horn – the Sunni alliance.

But this one is different. Using new western-style slogans of democracy, freedom and social justice, it comes across as a lamb while its inner soul speaks like a dragon. Soon, it will emerge with the two horns of a Shia base in Iran and a Sunni one based temporarily in Egypt; it will find its resting place somewhere else the West never expected. This Sunni horn sparked by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is currently seeking a non-Arab axis to represent it. To the West, this red dragon will come as a shocking surprise.

In order to find out which non-Arab nation they seek, we need to read the thoughts of the Arab-pro-Muslim-Brotherhood scholars in Arabic, not in English. Take the renowned Islamic scholar Louay Safi who served as the Executive Director of Research for the International Institute of Islamic Thought in the U.S. (IIIT), who recently wrote:

“The model for reform and the alternative to the Shiite Iranian model will rise again from outside the Arab region, namely from Turkey. The Turkish model, represented by the ruling Justice and Development Party has Islamic roots. The AK Party seeks to restore the Republic of Turkey to its cultural context and cultural history, and represents the current phase of the advanced variety of the Islamic movement in Turkey.”1 (Arabic translation mine)

Giving allegiance to the most powerful Sunni nation, Turkey will emerge from the Sunni alliance to supersede Iran’s Shiite horn. This Leopard attempting to cover its spots has its feet sprouting in Iran while speaking through the spirit of Wahhabism in Arabia; its goal since 1928 has been to restore the wounded Caliphate that fell in Turkey and revive its deadly wound.

It is not a matter of if, but when the domino effect takes place, stemming from Tunisia throughout North Africa and Egypt; we will soon see the emergence of the Muslim Union. And the goal is clear via Safi’s words translated directly from Arabic:

“The war against the apostates [non-believers of Islam] is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order.”

Adapting Sharia is the agenda through aggressive Jihad:

“It is up to the Muslim leadership to assess the situation and weigh the circumstances as well as the capacity of the Muslim community before deciding the appropriate type of jihad.”

But Jihad comes in stages:

“At one stage, Muslims may find that jihad, through persuasion or peaceful resistance, is the best and most effective method to achieve just peace.”

On the one side you have “war” (Hamas, Al-Qaeda) and on the other you have a “peaceful resistance” (the uprising in Egypt and Tunisia) all going hand in hand, playing good-cop versus bad-cop. The plan is being executed and the West, which sees freedom slogans in Egypt’s streets is taking the bait – hook line and sinker.

The Muslim influence is immense. The U.S. Defense Department even brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood, right after the massacre; he was invited to work as an instructor lecturing on Islamic sensitivities. Safi held a top official status at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front. He also advocates direct talks between Washington and Iran’s leaders

When one looks into Safi’s Arabic, it makes sense that he calls “peaceful resistance” as “the most effective method.” He calls for “change” to introduce modernization of thought by Muslims worldwide, not to adopt western style secularism but to use it in order to advance Sharia:

“The application of Shariah needs to build a public consensus and develop awareness and commitment to Islam before moving to the imposition of Sharia law.”

According to Safi which is in line with the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda “First: The relationships are made to gain a goal.” What goal? “the emergence of the nation into existence, in the sense that the establishment of an Islamic state requires the emergence of a society committed to the principle and Islamists standard, as it requires the actual stability of the nation’s founding of the state carrying the aspirations of the Muslim community.”

In preparation for this Islamic nation, its proponents are demanding democratic elections and the introduction of their policies: “the invitation to establish an Islamic state in this era should proceed from the nations’ call to exercise their right to political management of their affairs and issues.”

Through “peace” this rising dragon will deceive many by trumpeting non-violence. It is this moderate form of Islam that the West needs to fear. “Political,” not religious management is what the Muslim Brotherhood seeks through the establishment of a “state” in addition to religious worship. While all Islamists bow towards Arabia, the very nation that they hate for wounding the Caliphate in Turkey, the West bows to Arabia’s addictive and intoxicating oil, the wine that causes the West to fornicate with a dragon.

http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/755
 
I don't have any issue with the Muslim Brotherhood.

They have so far been committed to non violent means, they denounced al quada and the terrorist attacks.

Whether or not we can trust them on the face of it is cause for concern, but you are talking about educated people running that organization, not the extremists.

And honestly, are their goals any different than our founding fathers'? They wanted to unite all of the people in the colonies, push our boundaries to the west and create "one nation under God" afterall.

Sharia Law and the US Constitution are very different. If you are OK with Sharia Law, then are you prepared to abandon the Constitution? Seperation of Church and State is a biggie....

There is too much proof to contradict your statements.

Study history. Read the linked pdf document and let's see if you still have the same opinion on the Muslim Brotherhood.
 
Last edited:
Sharia Law and the US Constitution are very different. If you are OK with Sharia Law, then are you prepared to abandon the Constitution?

There is too much proof to contradict your statements.

Study history. Read the linked pdf document and let's see if you still have the same opinion on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Did I say that we should allow Sharia law in this country?

Why can't those people have Sharia law if it's what they want? How it ends up is to be determined, but don't those people have the right to determine how it ends up?
 
You are the one that compared the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood to the goals of our Founding Fathers, not me.

Who are "those people" you refer to? Egyptians, living in Egypt, or Muslims living in the US?
 
Sharia Law and the US Constitution are very different. If you are OK with Sharia Law, then are you prepared to abandon the Constitution? Seperation of Church and State is a biggie....

There is too much proof to contradict your statements.

Study history. Read the linked pdf document and let's see if you still have the same opinion on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Separation of Church and State is in large part to keep the State from making laws restricting the Church.
I don't have any issue with the Muslim Brotherhood.

They have so far been committed to non violent means, they denounced al quada and the terrorist attacks.

Whether or not we can trust them on the face of it is cause for concern, but you are talking about educated people running that organization, not the extremists.

And honestly, are their goals any different than our founding fathers'? They wanted to unite all of the people in the colonies, push our boundaries to the west and create "one nation under God" afterall.
Who do you think is running the extremist organizations? Educated people. These aren't stone age phillistines here, they're intelligent people who direct the lower level grunts to achieve maximum impact.

As far as their goal of Sharia law, have you read it? Sharia law isn't just a different form of law, it means death over adultery, mutilation for theft. It's horribly biased against women.
 
Separation of Church and State is in large part to keep the State from making laws restricting the Church.

The 1st admendment is designed to keep the government from forming a religion as what happened in Great Britian and to allow for different sects of the same religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Last edited:
The 1st admendment is designed to keep the government from forming a religion as what happened in Great Britian and to (EDIT) allow for the practice of different religious beliefs, as long as these practices don't violate US laws.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Muslin clerics within the US are promoting Sharia Law, which would have precidence over the civil liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, which is a violation of a US citizens 1st Amendment Rights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Muslim clerics can promote anything they want...they cannot enact Sharia law without the vote of the congress or assembly. How many groups promote stuff that never gets to see the light of day? Yes some groups are successful, but Sharia law nationwide? really?
 
Muslim clerics can promote anything they want...they cannot enact Sharia law without the vote of the congress or assembly. How many groups promote stuff that never gets to see the light of day? Yes some groups are successful, but Sharia law nationwide? really?


You're right Tom, that could never happen in the US.....what was I thinking?

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/02/the-real-impact-of-sharia-law-in-america/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/de_facto_shariah_law_in_americ.html

Sharia is great.......

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02...14-year-old-girl-whipped-to-death-by-clerics/
 
Any isolated examples of deference to Islam, xjeeper, are wrong. But I wouldn't lose sleep over any possible persecution and dominance over the 78% Christian majority by the 0.6% Islamic population of the US.

Just not worth worrying about.
 
Any isolated examples of deference to Islam, xjeeper, are wrong. But I wouldn't lose sleep over any possible persecution and dominance over the 78% Christian majority by the 0.6% Islamic population of the US.

Just not worth worrying about.
Where'd you get those numbers? Sound more than just a bit off...
 
You are the one that compared the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood to the goals of our Founding Fathers, not me.

Who are "those people" you refer to? Egyptians, living in Egypt, or Muslims living in the US?
The Egyptians, and from where I see it their goals are not that dissimilar.

Separation of Church and State is in large part to keep the State from making laws restricting the Church.

Who do you think is running the extremist organizations? Educated people. These aren't stone age phillistines here, they're intelligent people who direct the lower level grunts to achieve maximum impact.

As far as their goal of Sharia law, have you read it? Sharia law isn't just a different form of law, it means death over adultery, mutilation for theft. It's horribly biased against women.

And if thats what the Muslims want in their country why can't they have it?

That's the problem with our involvement in the middle east. We try to apply our standards and views. The purpose of having a Democracy is to let the people choose what they want. If the people of Egypt choose to have Sharia isn't that their choice?

There was a time in this country when the laws were biased against woman, and people of different colors. It wasn't that long ago, so let's not get all high and mighty with our moral superiority.
It's not as if women have it great in Egypt currently, at least if there were democracy and not a government run by the military they might have a shot at having the same movements that brought equality to this country.

Sure, it's possible that the Muslim Brotherhood or some other extremest group shows up and takes power. It's a risk, but at least then we know where the enemy is at.

You can't achieve things without some risk, and just abiding by the status quo doesn't seem right to me.
 
Back
Top