Muslim Brotherhood calls for destruction of Israel after election
The Muslim Brotherhood has called for the destruction of Israel (Hat Tip: Memeorandum) after the (Egyptian - although it could well be American if God forbid Obama wins) elections, mirroring rhetoric used by Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy. This is from the first link.
"Every Muslim will be asked about the Zionists' usurpation of al-Aqsa Mosque. Why did he not seek to recover it, and wage Jihad in His way? Did he not care about the fatwa of the ulema [scholars] of the Muslims, 'Jihad of self and money to recover al Aqsa is a duty on every Muslim?'" asked Mohamed Badie, General Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in a June 14th speech translated exclusively by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
The speech from the Brotherhood's Ikhwan Online website is evidence that the group has not moderated its position even an iota, despite assurances to Western audiences.
"How happy would be the Muslims if all Muslim rulers made the Palestinian cause a pivotal issue, around which Muslims, rulers and the ruled, would line up," he stated. According to Badie, they would ally to make "the sole goal for all of them the recovery of al Aqsa Mosque, freeing it from the filth of the Zionists, and imposing Muslim rule throughout beloved Palestine."
"The Lord of Glory has threatened these murdering Zionists criminals with a penalty of a kind which operates in this world before the Hereafter, he said, before referencing a Quranic quote calling Jews "apes, despised."
"We say to our people and our brothers in Palestine (all of Palestine): Unity, unity, persistence, persistence, reconciliation, reconciliation, and patience, patience. Make your motto and your starting point be in confronting the Zionists," he added.
Badie also made reference to the role of Hamas-tied convoys, in aiding in the effort to eliminate the Jewish state.
"Know that there stands by you every sincere Muslim mujahid from all over the world, and all the honorable nationalists. Do not presume that you are alone in the field, but there stands at your side and with you every free honorable noble man who rejects injustice, murder and bloodshed," he said, before stating, "Not far off are the Freedom flotillas which will come to you from various States, and Miles of Smiles which touched you from all over the world."
The most recent convoy by Miles of Smiles, which is linked to the U.S. terrorist designated, British organization Interpal, was led by Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood head Hammam Saeed. Hamas' Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh called that convoy "the declaration of victory over the siege and the declaration of the enemy's strategic failure in Gaza."
Read the whole thing. The video of Morsy's campaign speech to which they refer is here. It sounds to me like Morsi is doing a great job of taqiyya.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is featured in a campaign ad for Barack Hussein Obama that targets American Jews. So are President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak (of course, the latter two are less of a surprise, particularly Peres). But then, what do you expect them to say? We're the ones who need to get the word out that this is a lie.
But Danny Ayalon (who is persona non grata in Washington)? I don't get that one.
Think how hard it was to get Obama to impose sanctions on Iran.... And what do you expect Obama to say as long as he is up for reelection? Do you really think he's going to come out now for the 'Palestinians'?
In the old days, when Jewish books were subject to non-Jewish censors, there were lines stuck in the books that were clearly designed to deflect criticism of the censor. That's what's going on here. Most Israelis don't like Obama. Don't be fooled! This is all just taqiyya.
Barbara Lerner explains why it's time for the international community - and in particular the United States - to drop the notion of a 'Palestinian state' and instead commit to keeping biblical Israel in Jewish hands (Hat Tip: Ricky G). This is the best opinion piece I've seen this week.
The mystery is why so many Americans who recognize these obvious facts fail to reject the two-state “solution” altogether; why, instead of saying a clear, confident “No” to the two-state idea, they can only respond to the unending pressure from Muslim supremacists in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, their appeasers in the U.N. and the EU, and their allies on the Bill Ayers Left with a feeble, evasive “Not now.” Why don’t we stand up and say, “No. A Palestinian state is a Trojan horse of an idea; accepting it was a great mistake, and it is past time to firmly and finally reject it”? Some few won’t do that because they still cling to the blind faith that if we just push the Israelis to make more of the sorts of increasingly painful and enfeebling concessions they have been making to no avail since the Oslo accord two decades ago, Muslim supremacists will suddenly make a 180-degree turn and say, “Okay, that’s enough, we accept you as equals,” and peace and brotherhood with a small b — a brotherhood that embraces all people everywhere, not just Muslims — will prevail at last. Most Americans abandoned that illusion years ago, slowly and regretfully, but fully.
The problem for the great majority of Americans, I think, is that they have no new formulation with which to replace the two-state idea, no new policy idea they can openly embrace and work to implement in its stead. And when they look for one in the tangle of U.N. legalisms that greeted Israel’s rebirth, they get nowhere, because it is the wrong starting place. The shrunken and misshapen little piece of lowland the U.N. initially ceded to Israel was militarily indefensible — an open invitation to the attacks that followed. Looking for answers in the Zionist movement Theodor Herzl founded in Europe in the 19th century is no answer either. Herzl and his pioneering followers in Europe and America did yeoman’s work, culminating in modern Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, but it is shortsighted Western ethnocentrism to say that they created Israel.
A Jewish state in Biblical Israel could not be created by the U.N. or by the Jews of the West, only re-created. Ancient walls, scrolls, steles, and pottery, meticulously dated by modern science, bear irrefutable testimony to the existence of Biblical Israel. It was created nearly 4,000 years ago, and Jews have lived there, continuously, ever since.
It was only in the last 400 or so years that they migrated to the West in significant numbers, first to Europe and then to America. As late as the 19th century, a majority of all the world’s Jews still lived in the Middle East. Often, in their long, tortured past, they were reduced to a remnant in Israel itself, but they never disappeared entirely, and most did not go far; they remained in the Middle East. And from the rise of Islam in the seventh century on, they lived there as dhimmis, subservient, regarded as religious inferiors, impoverished, mostly, and with no rights that a Muslim was bound to respect. Today, these native Middle Eastern Jews — not Ashkenazi immigrants from the west — are a majority of all the Jews in Israel. They became the majority not long after Israel declared its independence in 1948, because Arabs in Middle Eastern countries where Jews had lived for centuries responded by stripping them of whatever possessions they had and driving them out, creating about a million refugees. Mass expulsions like this were not new to the Jewish people, east or west, but this time, all the Jews had a place to go. Nearly all of the eastern Jews, the Mizrahi, went home, to Israel.
...
“So what?” I hear my secular friends saying. “What has all this ancient history got to do with us, here in America, in 2012? Why should we care?” The answer is that we should all care, whether we are Jews, Christians, or Americans of other faiths, or of none, because our civilization — the Judeo-Christian civilization, from which we have all benefited enormously, and of which we are all a part — is under fierce attack today by Muslim supremacists, determined to force us all to bow down before them, either by converting to Islam or by accepting the status of dhimmis. This war did not start with the emergence of modern Israel; it has nothing to do with Israel’s treatment of the million or so Arabs in its midst; and it will not end if we allow Israel to be destroyed.
This war began in the seventh century, when Muhammad, believing that God had ordered him to conquer and rule the whole world in the name of Islam, first used Taqqiya to trick and then slaughter Jews in Saudi Arabia who did not bow to his new religion, and then went on to conquer large parts of the Arab world. It began, and continues today, because too many Muslims still refuse to accept people of other faiths — Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian — as equals they can respect and live in peace with; because too many are still committed to using Taqqiya and violence to establish their supremacy and our subservience. The problem is not that we have mistreated Muslims or failed to show them the respect they are due as people with great civilizational achievements in their own pasts. The problem is that supremacist Muslims have no respect for us. Accepting the ersatz identity of the so-called Palestinian people and groveling before this and other supremacist Taqqiyas does not win us respect. It earns us contempt, and strengthens the conviction — growing by leaps and bounds all over the Muslim world today, even in once-friendly Muslim lands — that we are a weak, confused, and cowardly people, remnants of a dying civilization, ripe for toppling. To change their minds, and our future, we need to reject the Palestinian Taqqiya and embrace Biblical Israel.
I suspect we're going to see a lot more demonstrations like this one as Americans wake up to the reality of what's going on in their midst. Sharia law won't be imposed easily in the United States.
Let's go to the videotape.
By the way, I got the video via two Lefty blogs. They're quite upset about it. I wonder why.
Bret Stephens compares the attempts by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to pass itself off as 'moderate' to similar efforts by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran in 1979.
It's what the good people on West 40th Street like to call a "Times Classic." On Feb. 16, 1979, the New York Times ran a lengthy op-ed by Richard Falk, a professor of international law at Princeton, under the headline "Trusting Khomeini."
"The depiction of [Khomeini] as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false," wrote Mr. Falk. "What is also encouraging is that his entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals."
After carrying on in this vein for a few paragraphs, the professor concluded: "Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics, Iran may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third-world country."
Whoops.
The Times is at it again. Last week, the paper published an op-ed from Essam El-Errian, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Guidance Council, who offered this soothing take on his organization: "We aim to achieve reform and rights for all: not just for the Muslim Brotherhood, not just for Muslims, but for all Egyptians." Concurring with that view, Times reporter Nicholas Kulish wrote on Feb. 4 that members of the Brotherhood "come across as civic-minded people of faith."
Of course, the New York Times is not the only group that's been suckered by the Brotherhood. So has the Los Angeles Times. And so, frighteningly, has President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who just last week called the Muslim Brotherhood 'largely secular.'
Here's an interesting take from Lee Smith on the Arab culture in our region, where, as Smith puts it so delicately, the truth is just one of several possible narratives.
Western cyber-optimists argue that information technology like satellite television and the Internet will so inundate the Arabic-speaking Middle East with images and information that it will entirely reconfigure Arab societies. But this has it exactly wrong: Culture is more powerful than technology, and how a society uses any given technology is determined by its culture. This is why no one wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to have a nuclear bomb, but no one has a problem with France’s weapons program. This is also why the Internet is not going to open the eyes of those Arabs who are instead more inclined to use it to spread disinformation. Pallywood is nothing more than the nexus where an Arab culture of lies meets Western technology.
That is to say, the Arabs are not winning an information war against Israel, nor anything else for that matter. Rather, the stories and lies they tell to delegitimize the Jewish state are part and parcel of the war that they have been waging against themselves, and with stunning success. The tragedy is that everyone knows where the Arabs are heading, because the signs of failure and self-destructiveness couldn’t be clearer—poverty, violence, despotism, illiteracy, mistreatment of women, and the persecution of confessional minorities, like Egypt’s Coptic Christian population. The Western journalists and NGOs who repeat and credential these lies are doing no honor to either the values of their own society or those of the Arabs; they’re merely helping a culture kill itself.
'Palestinian Authority': 'Jesus was a Palestinian. No one denies that'
They may persecute Christians (Bethlehem's Christian population has dramatically shrunk since the 'Palestinian Authority' came to town in 1994), but nevertheless, the 'Palestinians' still claim Jesus as theirs.
One of the ways the Palestinian Authority attempts to create a Palestinian history is to deny the Judean/Jewish nationality of Jesus, and misrepresent him as a "Palestinian."
Palestinian Media Watch has documented this ongoing Palestinian Authority historical revision. Recently on PA TV, the author Samih Ghanadreh from Nazareth was interviewed about his book "Christianity and Its Connection to Islam."
Let's go to the videotape.
Lying is a compulsion for these people. They call it taqiyya.
Al Sheikh "called for religious moderation and said Islam prohibits terrorism, extremism and injustice," in his sermon delivered on Monday to millions of pilgrims making The Hajj in Saudi Arabia, according to the release.
"'This statement from Islam's spiritual capital should put to rest once and for all the false claim that Muslim leaders do not condemn terrorism,'" said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
But M. Zuhdi Jasser, the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), called CAIR's bluff.
"No previous single press release or statement by CAIR more clearly reveals its ideological ties and service to the Saudis, and their Wahhabi ideologues - and its willingness to use word games, deception and moral equivalence to avoid revealing its true objectives," Jasser writes in a column published Wednesday.
Jasser notes that the CAIR press release neglects to mention the rest of the Grand Mufti's sermon and "the mere condemnation of terrorism in this CAIR promoted sermon means nothing – because the sermon is otherwise chock full of inflammatory Muslim supremacism (Islamism) and anti-Western hatred."
Other excerpts of the Mufti's sermon include condemning the West and attributing causes for terrorism.
In his sermon, the Grand Mufti "insists the Islamic nation rejects terrorism as a deplorable crime, but that it is not the only crime. The problem, he says, is not just terrorism, but also poverty, unemployment, and diseases, stemming from global crises," according to an article published Monday by the Voice of America.
The cleric also said, "'Violence cannot be cured with violence and neither can terrorism be cured with force, but by lifting injustices levied on oppressed peoples.'"
That is "hardly a morally-clear condemnation of terrorism," Jasser writes. "Rather, it is a demagogic moral equivalency of barbaric acts committed by Al Qaeda, Hamas and other radical Islamists, which this radical sheikh insinuates are understandable by the acts of America and the West."
Taqiyyah. But at least some people know how to recognize it.
Obama: 'Jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations'
This is from a 'town hall' meeting with President Obama at St. Xavier College in Mumbai.
Here’s what the young lady asked Barack Hussein Obama, as recorded in the White House transcript:
Hi, good day, sir. Hi, my name is Anna and I’m from St. Davis College. My question to you is, what is your take on opinion about jihad, or jihadi? Whatever is your opinion, what do you think of them?
Now let’s take a close look at President Obama’s answer, bearing in mind the lessons we have learned over the last few years about taqiyya as it is practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood’s agents planted in the West:
Well, the phrase [sic] jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.
This is always the first line of defense about jihad. There are many interpretations: it really means an “inner struggle”, and violent jihad is a fringe interpretation, etc., etc.
But this is not true. As Hans Jansen pointed out in his expert testimony at Geert Wilders’ trial, a consensus of the scholars — the Muslim legal experts and jurists who defined the precise meaning of Islamic legal terms a millennium ago — holds that jihad means waging war against the unbeliever until he converts, is killed, or accepts second-class status under the supremacy of Islam.
The only time when jihad means anything else is when fork-tongued dissemblers like Tariq Ramadan perpetrate their hoaxes on gullible Westerners.
Among Muslims themselves, “jihad” means “holy war”. Period.
But I will say that, first, Islam is one of the world’s great religions.
Heh. Doesn’t he sound just like George W. Bush?
And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance.
Yes, this is true. But these four words have different meanings to Muslims than they do to other speakers of English:
Peace means “complete submission to Allah”. Those who submit live in the House of Submission, Dar al-Islam. Those who don’t submit live in Dar al-Harb — the House of War. This is codified in Islamic law, and it enjoys the consensus of the scholars.
Justice means “carrying out the tenets of Sharia law in their entirety”. This includes the stoning of adulterers, the chopping off of the hands of thieves, and the beating of recalcitrant wives. It’s in the Koran.
Fairness means “the equal treatment of all under Islamic law”. But “all” means “all Muslims”. Non-believers are not covered by fairness. Once again, the Koran is very explicit about excluding infidels from the benefits enjoyed by the faithful.
Tolerance means “the acceptance of all people, no matter what their race or nationality, who abide by the laws of Allah as handed down by his messenger”. Do you think that means tolerating Buddhists? Or lesbians? Think again.
Now the “extremists” appear:
I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.
Once again, this is precisely true: Islam forbids violence against innocent people. The trick here is the Islamic definition of the word “innocent”. No one can be considered innocent unless he has declared his submission to the law of Allah. Therefore non-Muslims are never “innocent”, and may be killed with impunity.
It’s in the Koran.
Keep reading here. It gets worse. Either he's a fool, a Muslim, or he's like Lauren Booth was before her conversion to Islam last month. I'd bet he's like Lauren. As soon as he's out of the White House, I'd look for him to openly convert to Islam.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
The Muslim Brotherhood has called for the destruction of Israel (Hat Tip: Memeorandum) after the (Egyptian - although it could well be American if God forbid Obama wins) elections, mirroring rhetoric used by Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy. This is from the first link. 
