Unterstützer und Gegner der Muslimbruderschaft

Unterstützung der Muslimbruderschaft – früher durch England, heute durch die USA

Arab world: Has the penny finally dropped?

By ZVI MAZEL  – Jerusalem Post  04/26/2014

Is the UK’s decision to order a review of the Muslim Brotherhood a sign the West is beginning to see the organization’s true motives?

Since the start of the ill-named “Arab Spring,” the Muslim Brotherhood has been very much in the news.

Coming to power through democratic elections in Egypt and Tunisia, they were toppled within a short time by the people, who discovered their true intentions.

There were some in the West – but not all – who saw the light as well.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has ordered a comprehensive review of the movement, its values and the way it works, its activities in Britain and its impact on the country’s interests. The decision was made because the Brotherhood is allegedly behind terrorist operations in Egypt, and because some of its members have fled to England, where they keep on directing terror operations.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have already branded the Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Curiously, Washington, which staunchly supported Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi to the end even though massive demonstrations opposed his regime, is still favoring his group, to the extent that it “punished” Egypt for its coup by withholding part of its military assistance. A State Department official told a Kuwaiti paper a few weeks ago that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat to America.

This is not a view shared by most Arab countries, where distrust of the movement is deeply ingrained. It is, after all, the source of modern political Islam, a codeword for using Islam to restore the caliphate, through violent means if needs be. It is also considered to be the source of all Islamic terrorist organizations, which are born of its ideology and created by leaders coming from its ranks.

The Brotherhood set up sister organizations in all Arab countries as early as in the ’30s with a view to taking power. They have used force in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Algeria and Tunisia. (…..)

It took 9/11, and the fact that 16 of the 18 perpetrators were Saudis, to shake the kingdom out of its complacency.

The Brotherhood was expelled and its activities were banned.

In Kuwait and the other Gulf states, where it had been welcomed as well in the ’50s, the Brotherhood was allowed to establish local branches, and promptly started subversive activities.

There too, the rulers understood the danger and put hundreds of members behind bars.

Today, only Qatar is steadfastly refusing to turn against the Brotherhood.

The organization is solidly entrenched in the small country and pulls the strings behind the Al Jazeera channel, which has been vocally supporting sister movements trying to rise to power following the “Arab Spring.”

This is at the core of the present rift between Qatar – still rooting for Morsi and the Egyptian Brotherhood – and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Emirates, which are pouring financial help onto the new regime in Egypt. This rift is weakening the Gulf defense council in its stand against the Iranian threat. However, Qatar feels secure because of the support of the United States, which maintains key military bases in the country and still backs the Brotherhood.

Cameron is the first Western leader to address the problem. His task force, headed by Sir John Jenkins, current ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a distinguished diplomat, will sift through official and restricted documents and has even solicited contributions from the general public. A report is expected before July.

Still, it is strange that the famed security services of England do not have all the facts at their fingertips. After all, the Brotherhood was created in 1928 in Egypt – then under British rule. British officials allegedly encouraged Hassan el-Banna, to counter the rise of nationalist movements.

Furthermore, Ibrahim Munir, secretary-general of the world organization of the Brotherhood, has been living in London for the past 30 years, and it is from London that he has been managing the offices of the organization.

It is to London that Rachid Ghannouchi went when he was expelled from Tunisia in 1981, though he returned to his country to lead the Brotherhood after the fall of Ben Ali in 2011. Ali Sadr Eldin Bayanouni, leader of the Brotherhood in Syria, lived for many years in England. A number of Egyptian Brotherhood members fled to London after Morsi’s ouster, among them Mahmoud Hussein, secretary- general of the movement.

Cameron’s decision led Ibrahim Munir to seek to move the seat of the organization elsewhere; having been turned down by Tunisia, he hoped to be able to relocate in Austria, but was turned down again. He is keeping a low profile, but was quick to tell the media that the Brotherhood has always been respectful of British laws and that it will be vindicated by the review.

As for Washington, it has yet to comment on the British move.



Zur Islamisierung Indiens

US-Manipulation der indischen Wahlen zugunsten der Moslems gegen Modi

The Largest Election in the History of the Largest Democracy in the World

By Janet Levy

The longest and most expensive election in India’s history began April 7th and will conclude May 12th at a cost of more than $5 billion.  To manage the large electorate — estimated at 815 million — and address security concerns in the world’s largest democracy, the election to seat 543 members of the 16th Lok Sabha, or lower house of the Parliament, is running in nine segments over five weeks.  The results will also determine who will rule the world’s largest democracy as prime minister. The victor will ultimately be the party winning the most Lok Sabha seats, a minimum of 272.

Top issues in India’s elections are perennial — government corruption, nepotism and economic growth — but also playing a major factor is the burgeoning Islamization of the country.  The bulk of India’s population, around 80% Hindu, is concerned about past government policies that appear to have favored Muslims.  The most popular candidate for prime minister, Narendra Modi, has been painted for years as virulently anti-Muslim in an effort to undermine his political power during years of dedicated government service as Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat.  He has been the subject of eight-years of rigorous investigations and most recently by India’s Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), which found no wrong doing on his part, and he has been legally exonerated of all framed charges in 2010. Yet, he has been denied a U.S. visa, despite this lack of proof.  The outcome of the elections in India will help determine if the country will slide further under Muslim influence or pursue a path toward democracy and away from preferential laws for Muslims.

Those preferential laws were created under the rule of the Indian National Congress (INC), or “the Congress.”  Formed in 1885, the party played a major role in freeing the country from British colonial rule in 1947.  But, in more modern times, the pro-Muslim Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, has lost support.  As the economic growth of India has slowed significantly, government corruption has become rampant and infrastructure deficiencies abound.  Modi, a statesman of the country’s other major political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has pledged to institute good governance, end corruption, boost economic growth, and adopt a uniform civil code to foster equal gender justice and equality for Indian Muslim women who are currently governed by Sharia law.

Modi and Gujarat Riots

Although he is clearly the popular favorite for prime minister, Modi must contend with fallout from ongoing Hindu-Muslim strife in India.  A major cause of that strife was the defunct Babri Mosque, which was provocatively built by Muslims in 1527 over a Hindu sacred site in Ajodhya believed to be the birthplace of the Hindu Deity, Rama.  A  study released later by the Archaeological Society of India concluded that excavations revealed distinctive features of a massive, 10th century Hindu temple and the existence of human activity at the site as early as the 13th century B.C.  (The violent conversion of non-Muslims’ places of worship into mosques is common worldwide and there is historically documented evidence that at least 2000 mosques in India have been forcibly built on top of demolished Hindu temples at sacred sites). (See Chapter 10 and Appendix of this online book at this link: http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/htemples1/ )

Conflicts over the Ajodhya site occurred numerous times over the years and culminated in 1992 with the razing of the abandoned mosque structure by a gathering of over 1.1 million Hindu volunteers who had assembled there for a rally. Violence then broke out across India and more than 2,000 people died, as Muslims used the demolition of Babri Mosque as an excuse for ongoing terrorist attacks ever since.

Ten years later in early 2002, during a pre-planned terror attack at Godhra train station in Gujarat, a mob of 1500 armed Muslims, led by their co-religionist leaders of the Congress party, had looted and locked down a train filled with unsuspecting Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya and set the women-only passenger carriage on fire, murdering 59 Hindus, mostly women and children.  In the aftermath of this gruesome massacre, there were subsequent attacks by triumphalist Muslim mobs against Hindu civilians in several other cities.  In spite of robust efforts by the police and army to quell violence some riots between Hindus and Muslims ensued for less than 72 hours before subsiding completely.

Modi, who had just begun serving his first year as chief minister of Gujarat while simultaneously dealing with the aftermath of a deadly 2001 earthquake (that killed around 20,000 people, injured 167,000 and destroyed nearly 400,000 homes in his state), was falsely accused by his political opponents of encouraging the violence or turning a blind eye to the incident.  Their contrived allegations were a potent mix of Goebbelsian propaganda that involved exaggerating the number of Muslim victims, ignoring the large numbers of Hindu victims (who constituted a third of the casualties) and fabricating witnesses with the malicious intent of making Modi the political scapegoat for the violence. Despite being cleared by a state court and the Indian Supreme Court in 2010 of any blame for the 2002 riots in Gujarat, where he still serves as chief minister, Modi continues to be refused a visa by the United States since 2005 due to lobbying by Islamic, Leftist and Christian conservative groups.  Thus, he has been effectively banned from the United States, a ban supported by the current pro-Muslim Indian government.

The U.S. visa ban has made Modi, who has since been threatened with assassination and subject to slanderous attacks, more popular in India.  He is admired for his leadership in providing relief and rebuilding following the earthquake that devastated the Kutch region of India.  He is also credited for economic growth in his state of Gujarat.

If elected, it is hoped he will pursue the agenda of RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), a national patriotic organization of which he is a member and which pledges to uphold Indian culture and values.  RSS goals include the rebuilding of the Ram Temple, protection of cows — sacred for Hindus — from rustling and slaughter, and the revoking of Article 370 of the India constitution. That law grants special autonomous status to the Muslim majority states of Jammu and Kashmir.