Islam on a Collision Course

Amil Imani

When he was asked why the vast majority of Egyptians, the heirs to a great pre-Islamic civilization, speak Arabic rather than Coptic, a leading Egyptian historian replied: “Because we had no Ferdowsi,” the tenth-century Persian poet and the author of the Shahnameh (Book of Kings) who revived, not only the Persian language, but Persian identity. He is known for his efforts to save the Persian language, and the history, from oblivion. It has been noted that Ferdowsi is Iran's Homer:

“Twice as long as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey taken together, the Shahnameh blends Iran’s ancient myths and legends with accounts of major events in its past. Its 55,000 rhyming couplets chart the history of the Iranian world from its creation to the fall of the Persian Empire in the seventh century.” The cruel successful subjugation of the Persian people by the Arab invaders whetted their appetite for further conquests. They ventured into the civilized world—to Egypt, Syria, the Levant, Spain, and eventually to the gates of Vienna. Cruelty and terror were their instruments of policy.

Out of all the peoples conquered by the Arab invasion in the seventh century, the Persians are the only ones who can boast of a major literature in the indigenous language that they were using before the conquest. The Persian language, culture and traditions have been Iranians’ shields against the Muslim hordes and their barbaric Islamic ideology for the past 1400 years.

In English, this language is historically known as "Persian", though some Persian speakers migrating to the West continued to use inaccurately and inappropriately the word "Farsi" to identify their language in English. This word gained some circulation in English-speaking countries. "Farsi" is encountered in some linguistic literature as a name for the language, used both by Iranians and by foreign authors. But in fact, Farsi is the Arabized form of the native word Parsi. Due to a lack of the 'p' phoneme in standard Arabic language, the word Farsi was born. The Academy of Persian Language and Literature has declared that the name "Persian" is more appropriate, as it has the longer tradition in the western languages and better expresses the role of the language as a mark of cultural and national continuity.

The enumerating of the influences of Iranian civilization on the world cultures is not the primary objective of this author and is out of the scope of the present article. It is important, however, to demonstrate the salient point of how Islam has been on a collision course with great ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Persia and many more from its inception up to now. Just as it brutally conquered and bitterly stifled one of the fountainheads of progress in ancient countries, Islam still remains a very real threat to Western Civilization and to any progressive civil society in the 21st century. It is virulently capable of great destruction and retardation of minds, as we have seen in the past three decades in Iran and elsewhere. Any and all enlightened citizens of this planet who care about freedom, human rights and progress should take this clear and present danger very seriously.

Egypt is one of the crown jewels of the ancient world that is rich in culture and filled with illustrious antiquities. Unlike the Persians, the Egyptians became completely Arabized and have little or no nostalgia for their ancient past. Islam has dominated the Egyptian’s lives. Pew's Global Attitude Project poll shows that the Egyptians want more Islam in politics.


Page from a Coptic manuscript, containing the sermons of Shenouk of Atripe.

Originally, the population of Egypt was made up of Christian Copts and estimated to have been about nine million at the time of the Islamic invasion of 641 AD. Today, Copts form almost 15% to 18% of Egypt’s population. The Arab conquerors imposed a special tax, known as Jizya, on the Christians who acquired the status of dhimmis. Egyptian converts to Islam, in turn, were relegated to the status of mawali.

Early on, the Prophet Muhammad explicitly said, “There is no compulsion in religion.” He further confirmed that admonition, “For you, your religion; and for me, my religion.” But as soon as he gathered enough power, he violated those exhortations and set out to force his belief and way of life on others at the point of the sword. Further, he conveniently ignored his own teaching by unsheathing his sword at “the people of the book”—Jews and Christians. He spared them death only if they converted or consented to pay the backbreaking religious taxes of Jizya.

I believe that people in the West and in America are beginning to see the real face of Islam and the danger it poses to the secular democratic societies. In the past, Islam succeeded in largely displacing the magnificent Persian civilization with a primitive myopic discriminatory system of belief. Presently, once again with renewed vigor, Islam is aiming to destroy another civilization—the Judeo-Christian civilization, a civilization that constitutes a living falsification of the Islamic primitive and backward creed. Islamofascism presents a clear and present danger, not only to Western civilization, but to the entire civilized world as is evidenced by the ruling Islamists in places such as Iran, the Sudan, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia.

With the current Egyptian uprising, the very notion of rapidly advancing 1.5 billion human beings from illiteracy and barbaric 7th century mentality up to 21st century western standards of democracy is an utter impossibility. Over 60% of the 'Muslim world' (excluding Iran) are illiterate and are only Quran trained. The task is insurmountable, in my opinion. I believe first and foremost, we must free the Iranian people, draw them back into our Western civilization and declare Islam a defunct ideology that has simply failed in Iran.

While the Egyptian demonstrators are as much against Hosni Mubarak as his tyrannical regime, they don’t mind having ‘Sharia Law’ injected into their day-to-day life. On the contrary, the 2009 Iranian protests were just as much against the Islamic Republic as they were against Shi’a Islam. In fact, much of it was against Islam itself. People have experienced what a primitive and defective system of belief Islam is and aim to abandon it for good. In fact, millions of Iranians representing the entire spectrum of society are demanding change from the repressive Islamic theocracy to an open secular democracy.

Young Iranians, particularly the urban educated Iranians, are among the most ardent believers in democracy in the world. Many view America as the country that holds the best hope for spreading and protecting the high ideals of democracy. In a sense, many Iranians feel a closer affinity with a democratic Israel than all the neighboring Arab Muslim dictatorships. Although Islam was imposed on Iran some 1400 years ago, Iranians deeply value their own ancient non-Arab identity and have never fully surrendered to the Arab culture. During the bloodletting past war, initiated by the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein against Iran, all Arab states sided with the ‘Butcher of Baghdad’ against Iran. Yet, Israel was the only Middle Eastern country that remained neutral and in fact helped Iran in the struggle. We Iranians don’t forget our friends and we also remember our enemies.

While I'm worried that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over this quasi popular revolt in Egypt, I am also hopeful that the Iranian patriots will see the Egyptian demonstrations and be inspired to make yet another try at toppling the loathed mullahcracy in Iran.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.


Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!

You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8615/pub_detail.asp

The views expressed in the articles published in FamilySecurityMatters.org are those of the authors. These views should not be construed as the views of FamilySecurityMatters.org or of the Family Security Foundation, Inc., as an attempt to help or prevent the passage of any legislation, or as an intervention in any political campaign for public office.

COPYRIGHT 2010 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.

Muslim Brotherhood: With Israel, no agreement is eternal

MELANIE LIDMAN, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT

Moderate Egyptians say group less powerful than media thinks; conspiracy theorists blame Brotherhood for violence that's beset Cairo.

CAIRO – There are flecks of blood on Muhammad H’s blue dress shirt, remnants of last night’s battle.

Like almost every man lounging in Tahrir Square on Thursday morning, the morning after a fierce 16-hour battle with stones and clubs, he has a bloodied bandage on his head from where he was hit by a rock. He’s visibly exhausted. He hasn’t left the square since Saturday. They used knives, horses and camels. Our protests here were totally peaceful; we had no weapons, so we used stones, but what happened yesterday was the last card,” said Muhammad, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, as he sat on a traffic divider along with two friends.

“Last Friday, the police used the most powerful weapons they could use. They were shooting us while we were praying. After that, they used criminals to shoot us. They know we’re peaceful, and they press on that.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s power, or lack thereof, is one of the most discussed undercurrents of the January 25 revolution among media pundits and international leaders. For years, Hosni Mubarak has held onto his international support by stating firmly: It’s me, or it’s them.

Now that Mubarak will be out of the picture in the near future, Israel and the United States are worried about a government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

“All of us hate Israel,” said Muhammad, who is a lecture assistant in the engineering faculty at a government university in Cairo. “Israel is the best friend for Mubarak, they said clearly that he’s strategic for them.”

But he cautioned that Egypt needed to concentrate on its internal politics before dealing with the problem of Israel.

“Regarding Israel, Egypt has a peace agreement with Israel and any new government should respect that agreement,” Muhammad said. “However, if the government wanted to change that agreement, it has the right after taking the opinion of the people. No agreement is eternal.”

Click here for full Jpost coverage of unrest in Egypt

Throughout the week, many religious Muslims insisted that they do not want a government headed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

“I can practice Islam in my home, not in my government,” one demonstrator wearing a head scarf told the media.

Indeed, many moderates denounced the Brotherhood and insisted that its importance has been overblown by the foreign media looking for a villain. Even Muhammad explained that the Brotherhood was only one group of many calling for change in Egypt. “The Muslim Brotherhood did not organize this,” he said, gesturing around the square. “All of us in the square represent all the colors in the Egyptian political map.”

But some conspiracy theorists blamed the Brotherhood for the violence that has beset Cairo in the past 24 hours. One prominent blogger who also works in the Egyptian stock market told The Jerusalem Post that it was in the Muslim Brotherhood’s interest that the city descend into lawlessness.

“After Mubarak’s speech on Tuesday [when he announced he would not seek reelection], many of the people that tried to protest calmed down,” said the blogger. “But this does not sit too well with Muslim Brotherhood, which is trying to create a place for themselves and take advantage of everything. They’re trying to be a political party, but they’re not accepted by many people. If protesters stop, we will continue in a more civilized situation, but they won’t let this happen at any cost.”

Islam on Its Own Terms

Jack Kerwick

Philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn is among the more notable proponents of the view that "facts" are always laden with theoretical presuppositions. This may be an exaggeration, but there is nothing like commentary on Middle Eastern affairs to show that it is not devoid of truth.

Almost everyone on the left, and some on the right, insist that Islamic hostilities toward America stem from America's support of the state of Israel. That is, ultimately, it is the existence of Israel that accounts for why Muslims throughout the Middle East (and elsewhere) hate us. For the leftist, however, Israel is just the latest chapter in a long history of "oppression" that Muslims -- "people of color" -- have experienced for over a millennium.

The conventional wisdom among establishment Republicans is that Islamic aggression toward America is due solely to "the radical Islamists'" contempt for "our freedoms," a disdain born of an ignorance to which "the democratization" of the Islamic world would be an antidote. Within recent days, much of the Republican commentary on Egypt has reflected this bias.

These competing positions on the question of the West's relationship to Islam are as long on ideology as they are short on reality, for they each fail to take seriously the elephant in the room: Islam. It isn't that they are wrong, necessarily. There can be no question that legions of Muslims resent the existence of Israel -- and the support that the latter receives from the United States. It is also doubtless correct that similar numbers of Muslims despise the cultural and political arrangements of America and the West. But because neither view recognizes the other, what truth each possesses is obscured.

It doesn't require much familiarity with the Islamic tradition, and the Quran in particular, to discover that Islam is an intrinsically militant religion. It demands even less familiarity with the contemporary experience of Muslims throughout the world to realize that true Islam calls on its adherents to conquer, or destroy, all non-Muslims.

I will not embark upon the enterprise -- well-accomplished by now, thanks to such brave souls as Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, and others -- of quoting the many passages from the Quran that substantiate this point. But however unpleasant a thought this may be, it is a reality.

Anyone seriously concerned with coming to terms with "the nature of our enemy" must give up all of this silly talk of "Islamofascists," "Islamonazis," "Islamists," "radical Muslims," and "Islamic extremists." The "enemy" -- and anyone who looks upon me as an "infidel" to be converted or killed I do indeed consider my enemy -- is the orthodox Muslim. America and the West are in conflict with "Quranic literalists" -- or "Islamic fundamentalists," if you will -- and no one else.

Interestingly, in refusing to take the Islamic fundamentalist at his word, the leftist betrays his own "Eurocentrism" -- those parochial proclivities that he deplores in others -- for he judges Muslims not by their own standards, by his own.

Self-avowed "conservatives," on the other hand, are no less guilty of contradicting themselves. In staunch contrast to their leftist counterparts, conservatives have always been keenly aware of the fact that culture is fundamentally, ultimately more important to human life than politics. To borrow the Marxist's idiom, culture is "the substructure," politics "the superstructure." Yet in ignoring the "second nature" with which the religion of Islam has clothed the inhabitants of the Islamic world, in treating the problems of the Middle East as if they were primarily a matter of political arrangements, "the conservative" has betrayed his own position.

If we really want to take our situation seriously, it is high time that we left ideology behind.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/islam_on_its_own_terms.html at February 03, 2011 - 04:49:54 PM CST

An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/docum

Mohamed Akram
May 19, 1991(initial publication)

View the full document

Summary:

This May 1991 memo was written by Mohamed Akram, a.k.a. Mohamed Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the introductory letter, Akram referenced a "long-term plan…approved and adopted" by the Shura Council in 1987 and proposed this memo as a supplement to that plan and requested that the memo be added to the agenda for an upcoming Council meeting. Appended to the document is a list of all Muslim Brotherhood organizations in North America as of 1991.
Notable quotes:

*

Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state, wherever it is.
*

In order for Islam and its Movement to become "a part of the homeland" in which it lives, "stable" in its land, "rooted" in the spirits and minds of its people, "enabled" in the live [sic] of its society and has firmly-established "organizations" on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain "the keys" and the tools of this process in carry [sic] out this grand mission as a "Civilization Jihadist" responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.

*

The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. 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 "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.


Comment: Since this document we have additional information, recent information that confirms this position and even escalates their tactics to include violence. The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated universities, law enforcement,governments local to national and businesses. To suggest they are a peaceful, democratic seeking group is a lie. To downplay their intentions, actions and behavior is ignorant on the part of those making the claims. It is past time to know!!

Egypt: An Article Attacking Me Proves My Main Point!

Barry Rubin

Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor has written an op-ed that carefully steers the readers to the new conventional wisdom view of Egypt and suggests I am an "alarmist." That's not so bad. Someone who rings the alarm bell is trying to warn people of potential problems.

Might the overthrow of the more moderate regimes (yes, all of them are dictatorships) while all of the radical regimes (also all dictatorships really) remain intact be a problem?

So what arguments are made against my concerns? Well, there are a lot of references to anonymous experts who disagree. It's really rather funny how careless these people are and how they give away their own errors. Peterson writes:

"...the Muslim Brotherhood – for decades Egypt’s largest opposition grouping – has played a small part in the protests, compared with the critical role that militant followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini played in Iran in 1979." What's wrong with this? Answer: the year 1979! Of course Khomeini's followers played a critical role in 1979. They took over the government in February after all. But the comparison is to 1978, when spontaneous demonstrations of widely varied political forces went on for months during which the Islamists "played a small part in the protests."

So this argument is 100 percent fallacious, deliberately misleading on what would be a proper comparison.

One professor is quoted as saying that if the shah had been eased out earlier, Khomeini wouldn't have taken over. I think that's true. But it's also true that if the shah had taken strong action further the same result would have taken place. And he correctly is talking about1978, not 1979.

At any rate, this is not an argument against my view. While that argument could be taken to say President Obama was right to hurrying in ousting Mubarak, the fighting does seem to be going on longer. So doesn't this indicate that perhaps the Brotherhood will emerge stronger?

The article continues:

"Rubin paints the Muslim Brotherhood as radicals ready to pounce and do away with Egypt’s cold peace with Israel....Experts on Egyptian politics say that such views exaggerate the abilities and the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood today. The group has been struggling – like all of Egypt’s fractured opposition groups – to keep up with the fast-paced protests on the street."

We have reached a point that for me to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood, if it were to take power, would cancel the peace treaty with Israel--something they always say they would do--is portrayed as silly. That's how absurd the dominant analysis has become.

Also, notice again how sloppy this critique of my writing is. These unnamed "experts" say that the Brotherhood doesn't have the ability to do this today. Of course they don't have the ability to do it today. For goodness sakes, Mubarak is still president today! As for the Brotherhood's intentions, it sure is their intention to do away with the cold peace. Again, sloppiness. It doesn't say they will go to war just that they will freeze any type of relationship with Israel.

Actually, though, and there's that carelessness once again, all three of the experts quoted are experts on Iran, not Egypt! And two of them are not exactly deeply devoted to U.S. interests.

But then the best of the trio, Geneive Abdo, says the following:

“It is clear the new Egypt in the post-Mubarak era will be self-determined, more anti-American and closer to its Arab and Muslim neighbors. And this will happen whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood takes the driver’s seat in a new government.”

Right, that is what I have written repeatedly. And by the way, by "closer to its Arab and Muslim neighbors" who is she talking about? I don't think she means Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, but rather Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hizballah.

In other words, it would be precisely as I was quoted in the article as saying, “The biggest disaster for the region and Western interests since the Iranian revolution." The article confirms my view. What's important is not whether the Muslim Brotherhood runs Egypt but that Egypt becomes an anti-American regime close to radical forces and weakening the anti-Islamist side.

Egypt: Just 59 Years! Call that Stability?

RubinReports
Barry Rubin

Purely for intellectual rigor, let me respond to this Wall Street Journal article:

"For most of recent diplomatic history, American policy in the Mideast has tended to emphasize the stability of friendly regimes over the democratic aspirations of Arab populations. This approach is sometimes called foreign policy realism. The reality on the streets in Egypt is one result. ... So much for that vaunted stability." As a historian, I would note that the current regime has ruled Egypt for almost 59 years without a major internal challenge. Egypt has been an ally of the United States for about 32 years without a major bilateral clash. That's what I'd call "vaunted stability."

After Mubarak goes, is that record going to be equalled or surpassed? That's not an argument for keeping Mubarak but for keeping foreign policy realism. Realism believes in such strange notion as a country's need to keep its credibility, support its allies and punish its foes, and be strong enough to deter attacks on itself and its interests.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Crisis

Dore Gold
JCPA


*
Will the Obama administration's policy toward Egypt be based on a perception that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood would be extremely dangerous? Or have they taken the position - voiced in parts of the U.S. foreign policy establishment - that the Brotherhood has become moderate and can be talked to? Initial administration reactions indicate that it does not rule out Muslim Brotherhood participation in a future Egyptian coalition government.
*
Since January 28, the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement has become more prominent, with its support of Mohamed ElBaradei to lead the opposition forces against the government. In the streets of Cairo, Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators disdainfully call people like ElBaradei "donkeys of the revolution" (hamir al-thawra) - to be used and then pushed away - a scenario that sees the Muslim Brotherhood exploit ElBaradei in order to hijack the Egyptian revolution at a later stage.
*
There has been a great deal of confusion about the Muslim Brotherhood. In the years after it was founded in 1928, it developed a "secret apparatus" that engaged in political terrorism against Egyptian Copts as well as government officials. In December 1948, the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud al-Nuqrashi Pasha. It also sought to kill Egyptian leader Abdul Nasser in October 1954. #
Former Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Akef declared in 2004 his "complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America." In 2001, the Muslim Brotherhood's publication in London, Risalat al-Ikhwan, featured at the top of its cover page the slogan: "Our Mission: World Domination." This header was changed after 9/11.
#
The current Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badi', gave a sermon in September 2010 stating that "the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life.


Initially, it was widely observed that the Muslim Brotherhood has been very low-key during the current crisis in Egypt. Most analysts admitted that it is the best organized and largest opposition group in Egypt, but they played down its role. Yet since January 28, the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement has become more prominent. One tangible example is the support the Brotherhood has given to Mohamed ElBaradei to lead the opposition forces against the government.

In the streets of Cairo, Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators disdainfully call people like ElBaradei "donkeys of the revolution" (hamir al-thawra), to be used and then pushed away.1 Thus, there is a scenario that sees the Muslim Brotherhood exploit a figure like ElBaradei in order to hijack the Egyptian revolution at a later stage.

What is the Muslim Brotherhood? It is known as Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Arabic, or just Ikhwan, established in 1928 by an Egyptian schoolteacher, Hassan al-Banna. Outwardly, it was a social and religious organization, but over the years it developed a "secret apparatus" that engaged in military training of its cadres and political terrorism against Egyptian Copts as well as government officials. This dualism continued years later. In December 1948, the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud al-Nuqrashi Pasha. It also sought to kill Egyptian leader Abdul Nasser in October 1954.

The Muslim Brotherhood also had an expansionist agenda right from the start, and called for the re-establishment of the Islamic Empire. In the late 1930s, its newspaper called for retaking "former Islamic colonies" in Andalus (Spain), southern Italy, and the Balkans.2 This theme was maintained in recent years by its former Supreme Guide, Muhammad Akef, who in 2004 declared his "complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America," with the caveat that Westerners will join Islam by conviction.3 Others have also made this point. According to Sheikh Yousef Qaradawi, widely regarded as the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood:

Constantinople was conquered in 1453 by a 23-year-old Ottoman named Muhammad ibn Murad, whom we call Muhammad the Conqueror. Now what remains is to conquer Rome. That is what we wish for, and that is what we believe in. After having been expelled twice, Islam will be victorious and reconquer Europe....I am certain that this time, victory will be won not by the sword but by preaching.4

Over the years, the Muslim Brotherhood opened branches in a number of Arab countries and even has front organizations in the UK, France, and the U.S. But it has not disavowed its original commitment to Islamic militancy and its global ambitions. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood's publication in London, Risalat al-Ikhwan, has maintained a clearly jihadist orientation; in 2001 it featured at the top of its cover page the slogan: "Our Mission: World Domination" (siyadat al-dunya). This header was changed after 9/11, but the publication still carries the Muslim Brotherhood's motto which includes: "Jihad is our path; martyrdom is our aspiration."5

The current Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muhammad Badi', gave a sermon in September 2010 stating that Muslims today "need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life."6 In short, the Muslim Brotherhood remains committed to supporting militant activities in order to advance its political aims. From looking at the biographies of its most prominent graduates, one can immediately understand the organization's long-term commitment to jihadism:

1. Abdullah Azzam (of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood) and Muhammad Qutb (of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) taught at King Abdul Aziz University in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where they had a student named Osama bin Laden. Azzam went off to Pakistan with his student, bin Laden, to help the mujahidin fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

2. Ayman al-Zawahiri (bin Laden's deputy) grew up in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

3. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (the al-Qaeda mastermind of the 9/11 attacks) came out of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood.

Given this background, the Muslim Brotherhood has been widely regarded in the Arab world as the incubator of the jihadist ideology. A former Kuwaiti Minister of Education, Dr. Ahmad Al-Rab'i, argued in Al-Sharq al-Awsat on July 25, 2005, that the founders of most modern terrorist groups in the Middle East emerged from "the mantle" of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Many columnists in the Middle East have warned in recent years about the Brotherhood's hostile intentions. Tariq Hasan, a columnist for the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, alerted his readers on June 23, 2007, that the Muslim Brotherhood was preparing a violent takeover in Egypt, using its "masked militias" in order to replicate the Hamas seizure of power in the Gaza Strip. And columnist Hussein Shobokshi, writing in the Saudi-owned Al-Sharq al-Awsat on October 23, 2007, said that "to this day" the Muslim Brotherhood "has brought nothing but fanaticism, divisions, and extremism, and in some cases bloodshed and killings." Thus, both Arab regimes and leading opinion-makers in Arab states still have serious reservations about the claim of a new moderation in the Muslim Brotherhood.7

Ironically, in the last five years, prominent voices in the West have considered opening a political dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, Dr. Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke published an article in the March-April 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs called "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood" in which they advised the Bush administration to enter into a strategic alliance with the organization, which they referred to as "moderate," calling it a "notable opportunity" to use the Brotherhood to promote American interests. James Traub echoed many of their arguments in the New York Times Magazine on April 29, 2007, in which he claimed that "the Muslim Brotherhood, for all its rhetorical support of Hamas, could well be precisely the kind of moderate Islamic body that the administration says it seeks." In addition, a committee in the British House of Commons also advocated the UK opening a dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood, as well.

At the same time, some U.S. officials and dignitaries seemed to have softened their approach to the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressed President Mubarak to open up participation in the Egyptian parliamentary elections, resulting in a major increase of elected Muslim Brotherhood members from 15 to 88. Subsequently, Mubarak became more reluctant to take U.S. advice.

Visiting U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met twice in 2007 with the head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni, according to Brotherhood spokesman Hamdi Hassan.

The critical question is whether the Obama administration's policy toward Egypt will be based on a perception that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood would be extremely dangerous. Or have they taken the position - voiced in parts of the U.S. foreign policy establishment - that the Muslim Brotherhood has become moderate and can be talked to? The initial reactions of the Obama administration indicate that it does not rule out Muslim Brotherhood participation in a future Egyptian coalition government.8 Unfortunately, there is a dangerous misconception about the Muslim Brotherhood in parts of the foreign policy community in the West that could affect calculations in Washington and London in the weeks ahead.



* * *

Notes



1. Yoni Ben Menahem, Israel Radio - Reshet Bet, February 1, 2011.

2. Brynjar Lia, The Society of the Muslim Brothers in Egypt - The Rise of an Islamic Mass Movement 1928-1942 (Reading, UK: Ithaca Press, 1998) p. 80.

3. Lorenzo Vidino, The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), p. 92.

4. Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, "The Muslim Brotherhood: A Moderate Islamic Alternative to al-Qaeda or a Partner in Global Jihad?" Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 558, 1 November 2007.

5. Ibid.

6. "Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide: ‘The U.S. Is Now Experiencing the Beginning of Its End'; Improvement and Change in the Muslim World ‘Can Only Be Attained Through Jihad and Sacrifice,'" MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), Special Dispatch No. 3274, October 6, 2010;

http://www.memri.org/report/en/print4650.htm.

7. Halevi, "The Muslim Brotherhood."

8. Paul Richter and Peter Nicholas, "U.S. Open to a Role for Islamists in New Egypt Government: But the Muslim Brotherhood Must Renounce Violence and Support Democracy, the White House Says," Los Angeles Times, Latimes.com, January 31, 2011; http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-us-egypt-20110201,0,2958266.story/.

* * *

Ambassador Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was the eleventh Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations (1997-1999). Dr. Gold served as foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his first government and has advised Israeli governments since that time on U.S.-Israel relations. He is the author of the best-selling books: The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007), and The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West (Regnery, 2009).

Playing Arabian Dominos

Lt. Colonel James Zumwalt, USMC (ret)

Today in the Arab world, we witness a theory in action first articulated almost 57 years earlier by a US president who raised its applicability to a different part of the world. In an April 1954 news conference, with France on the verge of devastating defeat by communist Viet Minh forces in Vietnam, President Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed concerns communism could spread throughout the region. He introduced the “Domino Theory” with the following comment: “You have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the ‘falling domino’ principle. You have a row of dominos set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.” Twenty-one years later, the US war effort to preserve South Vietnam failed as communist North Vietnamese troops entered Saigon. The bad news was the US had lost that war. The good news—although not recognized until decades later—was by fighting it, the US had bought time for other countries in the region, empowering them with a means to deny communism a foothold. The Domino Theory had wings relevant to communism in 1954 but, by 1975, had lost them—the fall of Saigon marking communism’s last big hurrah.

It was the absence of a primary factor in Southeast Asia that, by 1975, made the Domino Theory outdated; it is that factor’s existence now in the Arab world giving the theory new life. We have watched a brush fire in Tunisia rage into a forest fire as President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali—who ruled for 23 years—was forced on January 14th to flee to Saudi Arabia. Within ten days, the fire had spread to Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak—whose rule is nearly 30 years—is desperately trying to put it out. Two days later, the fire reached Yemen, where President Ali Abdullah Saleh—32 years in power—seeks to contain it as well.

Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore was the world’s longest serving prime minister before voluntarily stepping down from power in 1990. His 25 year tenure started as the US buildup in Vietnam was underway and continued through the fall of Saigon, thus providing him with tremendous insights into regional geopolitics. In 1970, Yew made the observation, history would prove America’s entry into Vietnam bought time for countries like Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand to strengthen their economies, thus denying the seed of communism the fertile soil needed to take root.

As we watch the fires of discontent rage in the Middle East today, we see a soil that is fertile—not for the seed of communism to take root but for one of change to do so.

This soil is fertile for the same reasons that first gave wings to the Domino Theory. Wherever economies are stagnant or unproductive lies dormant a volcano of discontent capable of erupting from nowhere. In Tunisia, it came when a young vegetable vendor immolated himself to protest low wages and job shortages after police confiscated his cart. As news of this spread via social networks, so too did the riots.

The soil for change in the Arab world is fertilized by stagnant economies suffering from a lack of innovation to make them more robust; from rampant corruption; and from governmental authority abuse. But the soil is also fertilized by a factor in the Arab world today that historically contributes to violence.

The 2005 riots on the Arab street triggered by a Danish newspaper’s cartoon depiction of Mohammad prompted a journalist to observe, “Islam… embraces vast numbers of very angry men…Why?”

Such anger by young Muslims is attributed to what Population Action International calls a “youth bulge.” More than half the Arab world is under twenty. Whenever a country has a high percentage of young men, the tendency is to turn to violence. It is their discontent with unemployment, corruption and governmental abuse that is a powder keg only in need of a triggering spark to ignite.

The danger of violent revolution as a vehicle for change is in not knowing who, ultimately, will end up steering it. The popular 1979 revolution in Iran to topple the Shah and push for human rights was hijacked by Islamist extremists who have proven to be far more brutal on the people than was the Shah. In Tunisia, the leader of the main Islamist organization, Ennahda, absent for 22 years, is returning. In Egypt, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood is maneuvering to get into the driver’s seat. In wishing for revolution for change, one need be careful for what one wishes.

Unfortunately for the US, all three Arab countries in turmoil are allies in the war against Islamist extremists. Whether these revolutions open doors through which Islamists will now pass remains to be seen. But once again, the people of all three countries need to be careful for what they wish.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret) is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam War, the US invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will--Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields" and frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues."

Israel Never Looked So Good

David Suissa

They all warned us. The geniuses at Peace Now. The brilliant diplomats. The think tanks. Even the Arab dictators warned us. For decades now, they have been warning us that if you want “peace in the Middle East,” just fix the Palestinian problem. A recent variation on this theme has been: Just get the Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to “freeze” their construction, and then, finally, Palestinian leaders might come to the table and peace might break out.

And what would happen if peace would break out between Jews and Palestinians? Would all those furious Arabs now demonstrating on the streets of Cairo and across the Middle East feel any better? Would they feel less oppressed?

What bloody nonsense.

Has there ever been a greater abuse of the English language in international diplomacy than calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the “Middle East peace process?” As if there were only two countries in the Middle East. Even if you absolutely believe in the imperative of creating a Palestinian state, you can’t tell me that the single-minded and global obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the enormous ills in the rest of the Middle East hasn’t been idiotic, if not criminally negligent.

While tens of millions of Arabs have been suffering for decades from brutal oppression, while gays have been tortured and writers jailed and women humiliated and dissidents killed, the world — yes, the world — has obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As if Palestinians — the same coddled victims on whom the world has spent billions and who have rejected one peace offer after another — were the only victims in the Middle East.

As if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has anything to do with the 1,000-year-old bloody conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or the desire of brutal Arab dictators to stay in power, or the desire of Islamist radicals to bring back the Caliphate, or the economic despair of millions, or simply the absence of free speech or basic human rights throughout the Arab world.

While self-righteous Israel bashers have scrutinized every flaw in Israel’s democracy — some waxing hysterical that the Jewish democratic experiment in the world’s nastiest neighborhood has turned into an embarrassment — they kept their big mouths shut about the oppression of millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East.

They cried foul if Israeli Arabs — who have infinitely more rights and freedoms than any Arabs in the Middle East — had their rights compromised in any way. But if a poet was jailed in Jordan or a gay man was tortured in Egypt or a woman was stoned in Syria, all we heard was screaming silence.

Think of the ridiculous amount of media ink and diplomatic attention that has been poured onto the Israel-Palestinian conflict over the years, while much of the Arab world was suffering and smoldering, and tell me this is not criminal negligence. Do you ever recall seeing a U.N. resolution or an international conference in support of Middle Eastern Arabs not named Palestinians?

Of course, now that the Arab volcano has finally erupted, all those chronic Israel bashers have suddenly discovered a new cause: Freedom for the poor oppressed Arabs of the Middle East!

Imagine if those Israel bashers, during all the years they put Israel under their critical and hypocritical microscope, had taken Israel’s imperfect democratic experiment and said to the Arab world: Why don’t you try to emulate the Jews?

Why don’t you give equal rights to your women and gays, just like Israel does?

Why don’t you give your people the same freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to vote that Israel gives its people? And offer them the economic opportunities they would get in Israel? Why don’t you treat your Jewish citizens the same way Israel treats its Arab citizens?

Why don’t you study how Israel has struggled to balance religion with democracy — a very difficult but not insurmountable task?

Why don’t you teach your people that Jews are not the sons of dogs, but a noble, ancient people with a 3,000-year connection to the land of Israel?

Yes, imagine if Israel bashers had spent a fraction of their energy fighting the lies of Arab dictators and defending the rights of millions of oppressed Arabs. Imagine if President Obama had taken 1 percent of the time he has harped on Jewish settlements to defend the democratic rights of Egyptian Arabs — which he is suddenly doing now that the volcano has erupted.

Maybe it’s just easier to beat up on a free and open society like Israel.

Well, now that the cesspool of human oppression in the Arab world has been opened for all to see, how bad is Israel’s democracy looking? Don’t you wish the Arab world had a modicum of Israel’s civil society? And that it was as stable and reliable and free and open as Israel?

You can preach to me all you want about the great Jewish tradition of self-criticism — which I believe in — but right now, when I see poor Arab souls being killed for protesting on the street, and the looming threat that one Egyptian Pharaoh may be replaced by an even more oppressive one, I’ve never felt more proud of being a supporter of the Jewish state.

David Suissa is the founder of OLAM magazine, OLAM.org and is a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Jewish Journal. He can be reached at Suissa@olam.org .

Thanks Ted Belman

The Obamacare Assault on the Rule of Law

Heritage Foundation

Mere hours after senior federal Judge Roger Vinson, a United States Naval Academy graduate, became the second federal judge to find Obamacare’s Section 1501 (the individual mandate) unconstitutional, an anonymous White House official called in to question Judge Vinson’s entire ruling, telling reporters, “There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis.” The only thing “odd and unconventional” here is that a White House official felt it imperative to undermine the legitimacy of a coequal branch of government. Unfortunately this incident just fits into a larger pattern of behavior that calls into question just how far this Administration will bend the rule of law to protect President Barack Obama’s signature accomplishment: Obamacare. According to Heritage legal expert Robert Alt, Judge Vinson’s declaratory judgment binds the parties to the suit, which includes 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and the federal government. This means that, absent a court-issued stay, Obamacare cannot be further implemented as it pertains to these 26 states. So the White House now faces a simple choice: Will President Obama abide by a valid decision by a federal district court, or will he unilaterally ignore the rule of law? If the past is any indicator, the rule of law is in for a continued beating.

As former Member of Congress and Heritage Distinguished Fellow Ernest Istook documents, the Obamacare legislation contained unprecedented billions of dollars in advance implementation appropriations. The advance year appropriations were designed to completely bypass Congress’s annual budget process and go far beyond standard spending decisions for the current and following fiscal years. Some of these advance-implementation appropriations stretch 10 years into the future, far beyond President Obama’s term in office.

Then there are the hundreds of waivers reaching millions of Americans that are being granted piecemeal by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Just last week, HHS granted 500 new waivers, more than tripling the number of groups exempt from Obamacare. Unions that gave heavily to President Obama’s election efforts accounted for 40 percent of all employees exempted from Obamacare last week. In all, more than 700 entities are now exempt from Obamacare, totaling 2.1 million people. Last night before the Senate voted on party lines against repeal of Obamacare, Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC) explained why this selective enforcement of the law must stop: “Most Americans don’t play these political games. They don’t have lobbyists and PACs, but I think they should all get a waiver too. I think we should name this repeal bill that we will vote on today ‘the great American waiver.’”

Health care is by far not the only arena where the Obama Administration has sacrificed the rule of law for its own political expediency. It has shredded the Constitution’s Appointments Clause to install its favored bureaucrats at regulatory agencies. Then there was the “outrageous and illegal” takeover of Chrysler, the shakedown of BP, the assertion that President Obama can rewrite our nation’s immigration laws simply by not enforcing them, the refusal to enforce anti-voting-fraud laws, and, back to Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threats to silence insurance companies.

One can understand why the White House was so visibly shaken by its federal court Obamacare loss. The 26 states that are party to the Florida suit will account for 266 electoral college votes in the next election. Throw in Virginia’s 13 electoral votes, where another federal court has ruled against Obamacare, and that brings the total to 279, which is more than the 270 needed to elect the next President of the United States.

But political expediency is never an excuse to skirt the rule of law, especially for our nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Congress could help the President make the right decision. In a couple of months, when the current continuing resolution that is funding the federal government runs out, conservatives could attach language to the next spending bill requiring all Obama appointees to abide by Judge Vinson’s decision. You can see The Heritage Foundation’s “The Case Against Obamacare” here and the “Impact of Obamacare” here.

Quick Hits:

* This week the Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exempted a GE power plant from global warming regulations that the EPA issued just last month.
* House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R–MI) and Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works chairman James Inhofe (R–OK) unveiled legislation stripping the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
* Despite its opposition to efforts to repeal the law, the SEIU has obtained multiple waivers from Obamacare from the Obama Administration.
* Nevada, which does not have a mandatory E-verify law, leads the nation in per capita illegal immigration; 10 percent of all workers in the state are in the country illegally.
* A self-described “political activist” was arrested Monday night for threatening violence against a Florida lawmaker who had proposed an immigration enforcement law.

A Global Terrorist Influence

Erick Stakelbeck

Many analysts believe that the radical organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood will gain great influence with a change of government in Egypt.

A closer examination of the secretive group provides insight as to why its possible climb to power has Western observers so uneasy.

Before Osama bin Laden formed al Qaeda, he belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood. So did his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In addition, the terrorist group Hamas identifies itself as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. Why are there so many jihadists drawn to the Brotherhood? The group’s official motto may tell the story.

It reads:

* Allah is our objective.
* The prophet is our leader.
* Qur’an is our law.
* Jihad is our way.
* Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 in Egypt, with the goal of spreading Islamic Sharia law worldwide and uniting all Muslim nations into one Islamic super state. It was eventually banned in Egypt, but for the past several decades has worked behind the scenes to the point where it’s now considered the most influential Islamist organization in the world — with chapters in more than 100 countries.

“It has been repressed in Egypt and in many other countries where the Brotherhood has affiliates and entities,” said retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Myers, who has called the Brotherhood an “insurgency movement.”

“The state security services work against them because they are a subversive insurgent organization and they conduct terrorist acts and have been involved in violence as well,” Myers told CBN News. “Seeking to overthrow and change the governments where they’re represented.”

Although the group has been severely repressed in Egypt for years, it represents that country’s most organized and powerful opposition force.

Former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo told CBN News the United States must become more aware of the Brotherhood’s growing influence.

“Here in the United States, virtually every prominent Islamic organization is controlled and led by the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Gunadolo. “Why this is key, is because they see that they are going to destroy our Western civilization from within.”

The Brotherhood’s immediate goal, though, is an Islamic state in Egypt — and an end to that country’s peace treaty with Israel.

Erick Stakelbeck has been a correspondent and terrorism analyst for CBN News since 2005. He covers the global war on terror, U.S. national security, the Middle East, and the growth of radical Islam at home and abroad for the CBN News Bureau in Washington, D.C.

Obama's "Stealth" Egyptian Dilemma

Bill Siegel

Much has already been written about the Obama administration’s difficulties in responding to the current protests in Egypt. Serious unenviable ramifications lie in wait for any strategy adopted by the administration. Like every serious Middle East turn of events, where stability is so threatened and vital, a delicate balance of well considered and well informed thought is of paramount necessity.

Nonetheless, true leadership requires the administration, at the appropriate time, to clearly articulate U.S. interests and, more importantly, identify our allies and enemies. It is apparent that the administration desires to continue America’s cooperative relationship with the Egyptian military, part and parcel of years and billions in military aid. In the name of stability the military is of prime importance. The administration also wishes to support the presumed interests of the “Egyptian people” as the administration has preferred to describe them. While it appears the administration is less familiar with exactly who makes up the group of protesters than we would expect of our supposedly sophisticated State Department and intelligence operations, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have initially gotten away with referring to this mythological group. The impression they feed is that, like the innocent "victims" in Western protests who hold legitimate grievances, the “Egyptian people” have assembled just as those who flooded the Berlin wall; crying out for the basic freedoms Westerners seek- freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Assumed largely is the notion that the “Egyptian people,” given freedom, will certainly be pro-American.

This fantasy has floated the administration through its initial difficulties. It has allowed Obama to navigate the essential conflict that has defined "realist" U.S. policy for decades in the Middle East- support for a tyrannical ruler which compromises U.S. values for stability. Administration reserve and silence has wisely counseled its initial response, allowing Obama to avoid needless mistakes (excepting Vice President Biden’s counter-productive utterance that President Mubarak is not a dictator).

Yet, as the public begins to understand more that it understands less about the true makeup of the “Egyptian people” who comprise (or ultimately manipulate) protesters, silence becomes tiring and evidences weakness. Inevitably, the administration will have to take a position that clarifies who our allies and enemies are. The tightrope walking for years—that Mubarak has been both a major ally to the U.S. while simultaneously violating fundamental human rights positions important to the U.S.—is itself the narrative that generates much of the frustration of the protesters and allows many of them to view the U.S. as the enemy of the “Egyptian people.”

This view is exactly that of the Muslim Brotherhood, the “radical” Islamist group that many believe either provoked the protests in last Friday’s prayers or will hijack them. Although many choose to look the other way, The Brotherhood in Egypt makes no effort to disguise its position that America is its enemy (in addition to despotic rulers in Arab lands and Israel) or that it seeks the destruction of America as it is. In any other context, our leadership would have no difficulty in identifying the Brotherhood as our enemy.

Not so with the Obama administration. While President George W. Bush took great efforts to conduct Muslim outreach in the U.S., he was always prepared to identify “radicals” and “extremists” for who they were if the circumstances presented themselves. He began to take affirmative actions in pursuit of his Freedom Agenda to reset the balance more toward standing for U.S. values, particularly against Mubarak.

Obama took a different course. Specifically with Mubarak, he reduced support for democracy promotion and free elections. More importantly, he has conducted a very different approach to treatment of the Muslim world. Backed into a political corner to support the Afghanistan war, Obama locked into the designation of Al Qaeda as America’s true Muslim enemy while all other Muslims deserved outreach. Obama essentially divided the Muslim World into Al Qaeda and perhaps a few other “crazies” on the one hand, and members of a “peaceful religion” who suffer from prejudice and social injustice on the other. America needs to prove its bona fides to the latter and, presumably in some form, ensure social justice be returned.

This approach creates a difficult dilemma for Obama. The Muslim Brotherhood in its Middle East factions is undeniably radical and extreme. Hamas is Muslim Brotherhood—not merely, as some liberal media refer to it, a group with some connection with the Brotherhood. More importantly, the Brotherhood is behind all of the Muslim organizations in America that exert any degree of political power- CAIR, ISNA, MSA and so on. In America, these groups have been engineering what the Brotherhood itself has called “Civilization Jihad” which essentially amounts to an infiltration of all of our institutions while they have limited power such that, over time, they can pressure the fall of American culture to be replaced by Sharia Law. Robert Spencer cleverly uses the term "Stealth Jihad." Frank Gaffney calls it "Pre-violent Jihad."

The Obama administration, at every point of contact with the Brotherhood organizations in America, has bent over backward to cooperate, intentionally or not, ultimately facilitating the very strategies the Brotherhood employs. A quick read of the writings of Steven Emerson, Andrew McCarthy, Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and others gives full background to the Pro-Brotherhood leanings of the administration.

Consequently, one of Obama’s great dilemmas created by the Egyptian outbreak is that to truly surface as a foreign policy leader, he will have to ultimately identify the Brotherhood as our enemy. Yet, in doing so, he will then have to reverse the course of action he has taken domestically. More importantly, he will be forced to take strong actions against the Brotherhood here.

How does Obama turn a blind eye to all that occurs in this country under the flimsy guise of “moderate” Islam that is the hallmark of the Brotherhood operations in America? How do he and Attorney General Eric Holder continue to avoid pursuing all of the Brotherhood entities in America who are engaged in fulfilling their stated goals in seeing the West convert into Islamic lands? Simply put, how does he continue the charade that the Brotherhood organizations in America are “moderate?”

This problem must not be underestimated. It is, perhaps, taking more time behind those closed doors than one wants to believe. The protests have concentrated worldwide attention on the Brotherhood. They may ultimately result in horrendous unrest with dire consequences to America and Israel. However, the sooner Obama is forced to answer the simple question, “Is the Muslim Brotherhood our enemy?” the sooner this country will be able to construct truly meaningful policies and strategies to confront the threat facing the “American people” here and there.

Bill Siegel lives in New York and is a Contributing Editor to FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Will Ethanol Break the Muslim World After All?

Daniel Greenfield

Ethanol has proven to be an inadequate solution to the problem of foreign oil, but it has toppled at least one Arab ruler and may not be done yet. The Soros backed college students and the Islamists have done their part in the protests, but the Tunisian and Egyptian mobs would never have made their showing without a goad. And the goad was high wheat prices. Part of the spike in wheat prices was due to the shift to ethanol production.

Remember when Americans were lining up with cans of gasoline during the OPEC oil boycott? Arab Muslims are now in the same boat, except with bread, rather than oil. Arab countries are frantically buying wheat, especially after the events in Tunisia and Egypt. Regime stability in the Middle East is now tethered to wheat prices. The Arab has prided itself on the power to pressure America using the price of oil, but the United States has now proven that it can do the same thing to the Arab world with the price of wheat. The price of oil may be climbing in America, but in Saudi Arabia the price of wheat is up by more than half. The Arab-American relationship was built on a power inequity. They had a resource that we needed. But now we have a resource that they need even more badly. While you can do a lot of things with oil, you can't eat it. And while Americans may get angry when oil prices go up, unlike the Arabs, we don't overthrow the government. Of course anyone can grow wheat. China and India are the world leaders in wheat production. Behind them, Russia, America, Australia and Canada. But Russia has just stopped exporting grain. China uses most of its wheat domestically too but is ramping up export production. Wheat however is only one commodity. There are others.

The Arab Muslim world has held American foreign policy hostage using the one commodity they had that we needed. But as a side effect of their own terrorism, we adopted a course that unintentionally spiked up the price of a commodity they needed. They acted as if violence and chaos could only benefit them by driving up the price of oil, but the rising price of wheat is blowback. We of course did not set out to hammer the Muslim world with ethanol subsidies (though a smarter and cannier administration might have done that) and that is the beauty of it. Instead while trying to untangle ourselves from foreign oil because of their behavior, the net effect was to demonstrate their own instability.

It's more than a lesson in the interconnectedness of the world in the age of globalism. It is also a reminder that we may have more power than we realize. We don't need to invade a country and then occupy it for years at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. As it turns out we can topple regimes even faster with ethanol subsidies. Of course this isn't actually a solution. Wheat prices hit the poorer Arab countries the hardest. That being the countries without the oil. The net beneficiaries of populist protests will be the Islamists. And wheat won't be a permanent lever. China will ramp up its wheat production more aggressively in response to higher prices. We lack the wheat equivalent of OPEC to function as a price setting cartel. And the current conditions which brought together droughts in China, flooding in Australia and ethanol subsidies in America are close to unique. But what they do is show our power.

Ethanol is controversial on the left because it raises food prices and controversial on the right because it is built on subsidies and regulation. As a substitute for oil, it's inadequate, but as an economic weapon it raises certain possibilities. The United States is an economic superpower, but that is a power we rarely leverage. While the Muslim world has conducted a multipronged assault using lawfare, economic warfare and proxy terrorist groups-- we responded with charm offensives and massive armed offensives. But it can't hurt to take a page out of their book. To also use more subtle weapons. Including economic warfare. And as has already been demonstrated, price volatility can have a more explosive impact than a bomb.

The Muslim world has a small upper class, a sliver of a middle class and a huge underclass. While the trappings of the 21st century are there, from cell phones to the internet, there is more than a slight whiff of the feudal about the whole arrangement. Tyranny and brutality won't upset the applecart, but food availability does. (Medieval revolts were often triggered by high food prices.) What a feudal system needs above all else is stability. The illusion of a timeless order. A way of life in which change does not even exist. Instability is like lighting a match in a crowded room filled with fumes. And we have already seen what that match can do.

Arab Muslim rulers have bought peace at home by exporting their surplus populations and their terrorists to America and Europe. They have spun hateful fantasies about America and Israel to direct the anger of their own citizens away from the government. And we have been paying the price for it. Their artificial stability fuels our terrorism and the rape gangs and murders in our cities. The blowback from their terrorism has rebounded against them before. But always in a limited way. And with plenty of warning. This time though there was no warning. Just an economic tidal wave headed their way.

The rise in the price of wheat has hurt Americans. Particularly working families. But it has hurt the Muslim world far more. With the Obama Administration's continued commitment to ethanol subsidies, wheat prices are likely to keep on rising. And even with a Republican congress, that may not change significantly, because subsidies develop an interest based appeal of their own. Iowa is a swing state and ethanol is big business. The ethanol tax credit and tariff went through the Senate in December at 81 to 19 and 277 to 148 in congress. Throw in a cold winter and wheat prices are only going to keep rising.

In 2007-2008, Egypt saw major food riots break out. As did Yemen, Somalia and Bangladesh. The UN and the Davos summit have already issued urgent warnings about political instability due to food prices. The Islamists and Soros' boys have successfully piggybacked on this year's food riots, making it seem as if they had a massive following in the streets and a mandate for change. They succeeded in Tunisia, but Egypt is still up for grabs. But whoever replaces the dictators will not do any better. The Muslim Brotherhood wants to burqa all the women and start a war with Israel. That will certainly make the average Egyptian temporarily forget about the price of bread, but will make matters much worse.

Pushing women out of the workplace is economically feasible in Saudi Arabia, wallowing in its own oil. It's feasible in generally rural Afghanistan or Gaza which lives off foreign aid anyway. But it doesn't even fly in Iran and would mean economic disaster for Egypt. Cutting ties with America and beginning an expensive war with Israel wouldn't reduce the population much, but would cost a whole lot, and unlike 1967 and 1973, the Russians won't be footing the bill. And what would the price of bread look like then?

The Islamists have two weapons on their side. Oil and the birth rate. But the former can't be eaten and the latter must eat.

Islamist Tells Hannity: U.S. Will Fall to Sharia Read more on Newsmax.com: Islamist Tells Hannity: U.S. Will Fall to Sharia Important: Do You Support

Hiram Reisner

A Muslim cleric Wednesday said Egypt will be ruled by Sharia law and eventually the United States – and the whole world – will fall to radical Islam. In a heated interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Sheik Anjem Choudary also called for the destruction of Israel, saying the Jewish state needs to be “repelled” for what it has done to Muslims.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Islamist Tells Hannity: U.S. Will Fall to Sharia
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
“Sharia will come and it will remove the corruption of democracy, and freedom, and all of your exploitation,” Choudary said. “You are worried because you know Islam is coming to your backyard.”

After hedging his answers on several question about his beliefs, Hannity vehemently asked Choudary to be specific about al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

“You said you were on Osama bin Laden’s side: Three thousand Americans were slaughtered on 9-11, you support this man. I am asking you, do you think the people responsible for that are going to go to meet Allah in heaven and get 72 virgins?” Hannity asked. “It’s a simple – you’re supposed to be a lawyer and you’re not particularly bright – It’s a simple question: Do they get the virgins or not sir?

Choudary retorted, detailing U.S. actions in Iraq. Hannity would have none of it.

“The point is, you are radical, murder-supporting fascist, and you want [your ways] to be spread to the rest of the world,” Hannity said.

Hannity then asked if Choudary would like to see Israel’s destruction.

“When you occupy someone’s land, and you steal their resources, and you kill innocent, men, women, and children, then of course that needs to be repelled,” Choudary replied. “Every Muslim knows that Israel is occupying Muslim land. This is Muslim land that has been stolen – and it will be revived.”
.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Islamist Tells Hannity: U.S. Will Fall to Sharia
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Egypt: The American Debate Has Gone Stark, Raving Crazy

Barry Rubin

As I pointed out recently (it will be the next item so hold on for the link), the mass media in America generally presents only one side of the debate nowadays. Then, it publishes nonsense which survives because it is protected from the withering critique it deserves. And even people who should know better are just losing it.

Consider one example (Roger Cohen has gone beyond ridicule so let's focus on someone who should know better).

Here is how Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution is quoted in the New York Times:

“We were overly spooked by the victory of Hamas....The great fear that people have with Islamist parties is that, if they take part in an election, that will be the last election. But we overlearned that lesson and we need to get beyond that panicky response. There’s no way for us to go through the long evolution of history without allowing Islamists to participate in democratic society. “What are we going to do— support dictators for the rest of eternity because we don’t want Islamists taking their share of some political system in the Middle East?
“Obviously, Islam needs to make its peace with modernity and democracy. But the only way this is going to happen is when people speaking for Islam take part in the system. It's incumbent on Islamists who are elected democratically to behave democratically."

Presumably, you will never read how absurd this statement is anywhere in the mass media so thanks for dropping by and here's my analysis:

First, what is an Islamist? Someone who wants to seize state power and impose an Islamist state, transforming the society in the process. You cannot have pluralism because all of those who oppose you are evil.

An Islamist party is not necessarily a Muslim party. There can be Muslim parties that are not Islamist, though it is hard right now to find these. That's why, however, the elections they win tend to be the last ones or, at least, they do everything possible to stay in power. Think Communism; think fascism; heck, this is the Middle East so think Arab nationalism!

Do you know what the United States did after World War Two? President Obama hasn't apologized for this yet. It did everything possible behind the scenes to ensure that Communist parties--which were certainly not ready in the 1940s to be moderate--lost the elections in France and Italy. According to this new principle should it have let them win so that they would have become moderate?

Second, "overly spooked!" Is this some kind of paranoid reaction? There was not only Hamas but Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan and now Hizballah. And we have seen what has happened in Turkey with an Islamist regime, though it might accept the loss of power in the election later this year. But that's Turkey which plays by a different set of rules.

Hizballah has just taken power in Lebanon through elections. Any sign Hizballah has moderated?

And how about Yasir Arafat, not an Islamist though he tried to play that game a bit to maintain popular support. Remember back in 1993 when we were told that if he were allowed to take power he would inevitably become moderate because he would have to deal with road repair and garbage collection? That didn't work out too well either.

But why should we deal with real experience when we can engage in wishful thinking?

Consider the following chart:

Who in the Middle East could the United States depend on five years ago to support its basic policy goals?

Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey

Who in the Middle East can the United States basically depend on today?
Israel, Iraq (?), Jordan (until next week?), Saudi Arabia

Who in the Middle East is likely to oppose basic U.S. policy goals today?
Egypt, Gaza Strip (Hamas), Iran, Lebanon (Hizballah), Libya, Sudan, Syria. Turkey

Might there be a trend here?

The United States is running out of friends in the Middle East who it can overthrow. I'd love to use the 1930s Germany analogy but it is so excessively cited as to have lost effectiveness. So let's go to the Soviet analogy. “We were overly spooked by the Soviet takeover of Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Romania...." Well, you get the idea.

But wait! The United States is not refusing to allow "Islamists to participate in democratic society," the local regimes are doing so. Perhaps they know something about their own societies.

But wait again! Islamists do participate in elections in Jordan. Of course, the regime there makes sure they lose. So perhaps the United States should step in anhelp the Islamic Action Front wins the next election, all the better to moderate them! I'm sure (sarcasm) that it will keep the peace treaty with Israel. Then we can keep experimenting until there are no more victims left.


“Obviously, Islam needs to make its peace with modernity and democracy. But the only way this is going to happen is when people speaking for Islam take part in the system."

Oh, obviously. Except that it is not necessarily obvious to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, and the Iraqi insurgents, nor to non-Islamist-member-of-the- pack Syria. Why should one believe that taking part in the system will make them moderate. Is there any evidence for this? Any at all? And, no, Turkey doesn't prove that. Quite the contrary.

But what really riles me is when Westerners write a sentence like this one:

"It's incumbent on Islamists who are elected democratically to behave democratically."

Please contemplate those dozen words. What if they don't? What are you going to do about it after they are in power? What if they take your concessions but not your advice? The United States conditioned the Muslim Brotherhood's participation in Egypt's next government on that group's abandoning violence and supporting "democratic goals." There is no chance that it will meet those conditions and also no chance that the United States would try to enforce them.

I have an idea: why don't we wait until we have some reason to believe they will behave democratically before you put them into power?

Let's remember a little detail here: You are all willing to ignore everything the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has said or done for decades. You have no idea of their proposals in parliament, do you? You have no idea of their recent platform, do you? You have no idea what the Brotherhood's leader is saying in his speeches, do you? Nor do you take these things into account.

So how dare you tell me that the Brotherhood is or is about to become moderate when you cannot cite a single piece of evidence--well, ElBaradei's word when he lies to you about these things--to prove your thesis. Not one. Don't you realize that victory has made the Islamists arrogant. They are becoming more radical, not less so. And mainstream clerics in Egypt, for example, have also become increasingly more extremist, well before the latest crisis.

Frankly, the more these people talk like this about Islamists, the more I don't believe them. If they had any real proof they would offer it. And their ignorance makes me suspect their conclusions. In fact, what they have done is to give the Islamists a free pass: they don't have to change their policies or behavior at all because they can depend on Western "useful infidels" to claim they are moderate even when they are not.



I am writing this about 50 miles from Egyptian territory. Two next-door countries--Lebanon and for all practical purposes the Gaza Strip--already have Islamist-run regimes. Some would count Saudi Arabia as a third, though I wouldn't necessarily do so. A fourth, Syria, is in the Islamist alliance. Now a fifth, Egypt, might be headed that way. All that's left is Jordan. This week, at least.

So, is the United States going to, "Support dictators for the rest of eternity because we don’t want Islamists taking their share of some political system in the Middle East?" Well, you are running out of dictators, though I suppose you could back the overthrow of the king of Morocco and back the Islamic Salvation Front into power in Algeria.

But on the positive side, there are more and more dictators who the United States doesn't support! Good news. They are anti-American dictators who sponsor terrorism and subvert their neighbors. The United States doesn't support these dictators, it merely engages them. We can look forward to a bright future in which the United States doesn't support any dictators in the Middle East at all, because Iran and the Islamists will fill that role.

I have an idea: Please experiment with the lives of people closer to your own homes.


Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22

ElBaradei's Role Cast in Doubt

CHARLES LEVINSON

CAIRO—To the outside world, the leader of Egypt's anti-Mubarak revolt is a scholarly former United Nations official named Mohamed ElBaradei.

But to the seasoned opposition leaders inside Egypt who have been at the center of the country's mass demonstrations, Mr. ElBaradei may be little more than a transitional figurehead.

In the weeks leading up to the extraordinary uprising, a spectrum of opposition figures banded together to plan an alternative vision to the regime of President Hosni Mubarak. Even before last month's popular ouster of Tunisia's president electrified protesters in Egypt and across the Middle East, these people held dozens of meetings lasting more than 100 hours. They created a 100-member "shadow legislature" of union leaders, judges and representatives from youth parties and the country's banned but influential Muslim Brotherhood, say people in attendance.

While the speed and scope of the past week's protests in Egypt largely took them by surprise, the opposition figures quickly assembled a game plan. On Tuesday, when the shadow legislature's 10-person steering committee met for the first time, they agreed to back Mr. ElBaradei in their negotiations with Mr. Mubarak's government.

But these people say they see Mr. ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace-prize winner of international standing, as less of a future president than a fair and nonpartisan figurehead and an arbiter capable of refereeing their discussions. Because he has spent much of his life outside the gritty world of domestic politics, he is also seen as posing little threat to these parties should they begin the hardnosed business of vying in earnest for power.

Mr. ElBaradei's appearance Sunday night in Cairo's central Tahrir Square disappointed many activists, who felt he had failed to seize the moment to rally the crowd. Many protesters said they didn't notice he was there or know that he had spoken. He hasn't shown up to the square since, including for Tuesday's "march of millions," which drew hundreds of thousands of Egyptians to demand Mr. Mubarak's ouster.

"The protestors out here in the square are strong and inspiring, and when ElBaradei came he seemed kind of weak next to them, not like someone who would make me follow them," said Heba Sultan, a young democracy activist in Tahrir Square.

Mr. ElBaradei also hasn't attended meetings of the shadow legislature's steering committee—of which he is a member—so far this week, following his return to Cairo from abroad as demonstrations were already gaining speed. A spokesman for Mr. ElBaradei said he lives too far away from central Cairo and has been tired out by the last few days of demonstrations.
Members of Egypt's Opposition Steering Committee

Mohamed ElBaradei: Former head of International Atomic Energy Agency, leader of Egypt's National Association for Change

Mohammad Baltagi:Head of Muslim Brotherhood bloc of lawmakers from 2005 to 2010

Hamdeen Sabahy: Head of the Karama Party, a secular, left-wing Arab Nationalist party

Abdel Galil Mustafa: The coordinator for the National Association for Change, Mr. ElBaradei's group

Mahmoud Al-Khudairi: Former vice president of Egypt's appeals court

George Ishaq: Former head of the Kefaya protest movement, which led the protest against President Mubarak in 2005

Abdel Ezz Hariri: Formerly of Tegammu, a secular leftist party

Ayman Nour: Head of the liberal secular Ghad party. Ran against Mubarak in 2005 elections

Magdy Ahmed Hussein: Head of the pro-Islamist Labor Party

Osama Ghazali Harb: A former member of Mubarak's ruling NDP and Mubarak family confidant; left the party and founded the secular and liberal National Democratic Front. Editor in chief of Siyasat Dowlia, an Egyptian journal on international affairs

Youth Movements: These groups have been asked to send 3-5 members to the committee:
6 April Youth Facebook group started in 2008 to show solidarity with striking workers
Pro ElBaradei Youth
Al Ghad Youth
Muslim Brotherhood Youth
National Democratic Front Youth

In an interview Wednesday with a small group of journalists, Mr. ElBaradei gave voice to the anger that spread among demonstrators when Mr. Mubarak said Tuesday he would serve out his term, though not seek re-election. Mr. ElBaradei called the announcement "an act of deception" and a "ploy."

Mr. ElBaradei was diffident about his political aspirations, a stance that has come to frustrate some supporters. "I am not interested in any position," he said. "If I am able to put Egypt on the right track, that would be my ultimate aim. But at the same time, as I said, if people want me to run, I won't let them down."

He dismissed criticisms that he had been absent from Egypt for critical periods. "The people say I'm parachuting. When I was away, they were crying that he deserted us. When I'm back they say he's parachuting to take charge of the revolution," he said. "People don't understand that I was not in and out on leisurely trips...You need to get the sympathy and understanding of the international community for the plight of Egyptians."

Mr. ElBaradei's emergence as an opposition figure is especially surprising given that when he stepped down in November 2009 after a dozen years heading the U.N'.s International Atomic Energy Agency, he expressed no interest in becoming involved in Egyptian politics. "When people were first approaching him saying, 'Will you run for president of Egypt in 2011?' he was very dismissive of it," says Laban Coblentz, Mr. ElBaradei's longtime speechwriter, who recently helped him write a memoir slated to be published in April.

But ex-colleagues say Mr. ElBaradei, whose international profile soared after he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the IAEA in 2005, experienced a change of heart after teaching himself how to use social-networking sites on the Internet to monitor Egyptian events from afar.

Among other things, he discovered Facebook "fan" pages with thousands of followers urging him to run for president this year. His own Facebook page, which is frequently updated, currently has more than 314,000 admirers.

"It was really this last 14 months, where someone I knew as not being particularly computer savvy, taught himself to use Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and started to do in virtual space which was forbidden to do by the Mubarak regime, the freedom of assembly by large groups," says Mr. Coblentz.
ElBaradei: From the Archives

* Opposition Unites in Egypt
(01/31/2011)
* In Upheaval, ElBaradei Is a Wild Card
(01/29/2011)
* New Contender Emerges in Egypt
(12/10/2010)
* Egypt's Unusual Political Pair
(08/26/2010)
* ElBaradei Widens Egypt Reform Push
(04/22/2010)
* Egypt's Opposition Gives ElBaradei a Hero's Welcome
(02/21/2010)
* Opinion: ElBaradei: Let Us Inspect
(03/07/2003)

Mr. ElBaradei last year founded the National Association for Change, a grouping of opposition movements whose constituents have since taken a central role in organizing the past days' protests. That association was, in turn, a major player in assembling the shadow parliament, following Egypt's widely criticized elections in November.

With Mr. ElBaradei away from the country, about a dozen opposition groups conducted some 60 meetings hashing the 100-legislator parallel government. "We devised the shadow parliament so that when the time for change came, we have the mechanisms in place to make decisions," said Wa'il Nawara, a member of the body from the secular Ghad Party. "We were just in time."

The group meets in the third-story headquarters of the liberal-secular Ghad, founded by Ayman Nour, who challenged Mr. Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections. Mr. Nour was subsequently tossed in jail on fraud charges, which he and other opposition activists said were trumped up by the government.

The shadow parliament's meeting chambers overlook Talaat Harb Square in downtown Cairo. There are three rows of oak benches for the faux lawmakers, a three-seat raised platform in front for the chamber's presiding officials and a speaker's podium.

The groups have agreed to refrain from competing with each other during the current transitional period, calling it an arena to hash out the rules for electoral competition in the future, according to the members. "This isn't the time for competition between the parties," said Osama Ghazali Harb, one of 10 people on the steering committee.
Journal Photos: Clashes in Cairo

View Slideshow
[SB10001424052748703960804576120631249769922]
Guy Martin for The Wall Street Journal

Anti-government protesters clashed with supporters of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Tahrir Square.
Photos: Wednesday Protests

View Slideshow
[SB10001424052748703960804576119733005482512]
Lefteris Pitarakis/Associated Press

Pro-government demonstrators, bottom, watched as cars burned during clashes with anti-government demonstrators, top, behind barriers, in Tahrir Square.
Regional Upheaval

View Interactive

A succession of rallies and demonstrations, in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Algeria have been inspired directly by the popular outpouring of anger that toppled Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. See how these uprising progressed.

One pivotal participant has been the Muslim Brotherhood, a Cairo-based group banned in Egypt that hopes to meld the Islamic religion with Egypt's legal system.

Its representatives reassured skeptics among their secular allies who have long feared the Brotherhood would try to dominate any alliance they joined, when they were content to take just 15% of the shadow parliament's seats.

The parliament had planned to use its inaugural session last Sunday to elect a speaker and choose a spokesman. But amid an unexpected popular uprising against Mr. Mubarak, the body instead plunged straight to work, according to members.

It appointed a 10-person committee that has assumed informal leadership of the swelling protest movement. Its members include Mr. ElBaradei and a Muslim Brotherhood representative.

Another member is the Ghad Party's Mr. Nour, who became an international cause célèbre for his jailing following the 2005 election. "Mubarak wants us to think we have only two choices between indefinite tyranny and total chaos, and we reject this," Mr. Nour told a small group of journalists in his party's headquarters in downtown Cairo on Wednesday.

The committee of 10 met for the first time Tuesday morning, over tea and biscuits in the waiting room of the medical clinic belonging to one of the committee members. Their first task was to coordinate their response to an offer by Egypt's newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman, who until Saturday was Mr. Mubarak's longtime trusted intelligence chief, to hold negotiations with all opposition forces, including the banned Brotherhood.

They decided they wouldn't negotiate as long as Mr. Mubarak remained in power, they said in a statement Tuesday. They met again on Wednesday morning, to craft a response to Mr. Mubarak's speech late Tuesday night, in which he said he wouldn't run again for president in September.

Mohamed Al-Baltagi, the Muslim Brotherhood's representative on the 10-man steering committee, gave his analysis of the speech, say people present at the meeting. He said Mr. Mubarak struck a sentimental tone that would likely appeal to some segments of Egyptian society, these people said. The next day, pro-government protesters turned out in Cairo, mounting a sometimes-brutal response to the mounting wave of antiregime protesters.

Committee members are waiting for a handful of youth activist groups to pick three to five representatives to join the committee, which would bring the number to 13 or 15.

Mr. Baltagi was the president of the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc of lawmakers from 2005 until 2010, when the government wiped out the Brotherhood's presence in parliament. His movement's involvement in the infant opposition alliance underscores one of its more remarkable achievements. So far, participants have managed to overcome the longstanding divisions between the country's secular and Islamist opposition movements.

Mr. Baltagi didn't answer his phone Wednesday, but other Brotherhood officials said their movement was willing to put aside ideological differences in the face of a common enemy, Mr. Mubarak.

The government has long used divide-and-rule tactics and state funding to keep the country's traditional and established opposition parties weak, unpopular and unable to pose any kind of real challenge to the government.

These parties are viewed by many Egyptians to be too deferential and cooperative with the government. Most of these established, legal opposition parties have refused to join ranks with the new opposition alliance, although many individuals within their ranks have joined. A spokesman for one of the parties, the Nasserists, said they didn't join due to unspecified disagreements with Mr. ElBaradei.
—Steve Stecklow, Matt Bradley and David Crawford contributed to this article.