Expediting the Grand Jihad Part Two: Engaging the Muslim Brotherhood
by Paul & Phillip D. Collins,
Jan. 19, 2008
Conspiracy Archive
Inauguration: The Beast Enters the Gates
For many, the January 20 Presidential inauguration of Barack Obama is reason for celebration. Obama supporters everywhere believe that the event represents the introduction of the solution to America’s deepening crisis. It would break not a few hearts, however, if it was revealed that the enemies of America are going to be in attendance. According to a January 14 Associated Press article, a prayer will be offered at the inauguration by Ingrid Mattson, the first woman president of America’s largest Muslim group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) (Zoll, “Muslim woman, rabbis to pray at inaugural service”). While many Americans may believe that this prayer offering represents a celebration of religious pluralism, the hidden message behind this display, which is only discernible to the power elite and the most astute observer, is that members of the Establishment will continue their torrent love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood. The first installment of this series established the Muslim Brotherhood as a dangerous organization that is partially responsible for spawning al Qaeda. Furthermore, the Brotherhood has a long running, symbiotic relationship with the power elite and the darker factions of the United States government and the intelligence community.
ISNA’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood was revealed during the 2007 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial. Before being shut down by the United States government, the HLF was the largest Islamic charity in America. In 2001, evidence began to surface that HLF was a fundraising entity for Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. One of HLF’s founders, Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, was even a Hamas political leader. This lead to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control classifying HLF as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (“Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons”). During the HLF trial, ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator that was “intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas” (Gerstein, “U.S.: Facts Tie Muslim Groups To Hamas Front Case”). The prosecution also introduced several exhibits into evidence that established ISNA’s “intimate relationship” with the Muslim Brotherhood (ibid). In a 1991 internal document written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood, HLF appears on a list of Brotherhood “friends” (Akram).
The Muslim Brotherhood is anything but Muslim. The party, which is considered the world’s largest and oldest Islamist group, is actually a cult of neo-Gnostic immanentists. The Brotherhood re-conceptualizes the concept of jihad, which actually connotes a personal struggle, as an object of immanent experience. Thus, the spiritual conflict of orthodox Islam is transplanted within the ontological plane of the physical universe. Such an ontological transplantation is a defining feature of all sociopolitical Utopianism, as is evidenced by the myriad of earthly paradises envisioned by revolutionaries throughout history. While the concept of a worldly Heaven circulated under numerous appellations, it was always portrayed as a future that would be instantiated through the efforts of man himself. Historically, such immanentist crusades have resulted in wars, terrorism, and genocide. For instance, the immanentist crusade of Hitlerian fascism attempted to establish a Third Reich through eugenical regimentation. Their ideological kissing cousins, the communists, sought to establish the worker’s paradise through the bloody revolution of Marxist dialectic. Neoconservatives, which are the progenies of Trotskyism, have attempted to establish a Pax Americana through the violent imperialism of the so-called “global democratic revolution.” In the case of immanentist Muslims, factions like the Sufi Sunnis and Ismaili Shiites wage a jihad within the ontological confines of the visible world in hopes of achieving a universal submission to their perverted version of Islam. Some immanentist Muslims even believe in an immanent parousia, as is evidenced by the disturbing messianic claims of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Given its neo-Gnostic eschatology, the Muslim Brotherhood is merely another incarnation of the immanentist crusade.
The 1991 internal document written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrates the organization’s immanentist interpretation of jihad. Entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” the document states that the Brotherhood’s activities in the United States represent “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” (Akram). The Muslim Brotherhood is deadly serious about their neo-Gnostic crusade. In “Ikhwan in America,” a document over the Muslim Brotherhood that was released during the HLF trial, Brotherhood members are alleged to have travelled to camps where they engaged in weapons training, which the Brotherhood euphemistically refers to as “Special Work” (“Ikhwan in America”). The document also describes a Brotherhood method known as “Securing the Group,” which amounts to little more than counterintelligence operations against the U.S. government (ibid).
The inauguration will not be the first time that Mattson has had an audience with the democratic wing of the Establishment. The ISNA president also spoke during the Interfaith Gathering at the 2008 Democratic National Convention (“Democratic Convention To Highlight Diverse Community of Faith Leaders Working Toward Common Good”). Before the new administration, the Bush White House also had contact with the Brotherhood and its allies. What happened to Obama’s promise of change? When it comes to maintaining contact with America’s enemies, it seems that Obama’s pledge is null and void.
The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project and the Muslim Brotherhood
Mattson is also a member of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project’s Leadership Group (“U.S-Muslim Engagement Project: Leadership Group On U.S. Muslim Engagement”). While this organization claims to be creating and advocating a bipartisan strategy of improving relations between the U.S. and Muslim world, the real goal seems to be legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations involved in the neo-Gnostic “grand Jihad.” In a document entitled “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World,” the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project promotes the U.S. government forging official ties with the Brotherhood. The document states:
The U.S. must also consider when and how to talk with political movements that have substantial public support and have renounced violence, but are outlawed or restricted by authoritarian governments allied to the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood parties in Egypt and Jordan are arguably in this category. (“Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World”)
In order to convince the U.S. government to establish formal channels with the Brotherhood, the party’s image must be cleaned up considerably. The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is not ignorant of this fact. “Changing Course” presents the Brotherhood as an organization that has abandoned violence and is pursuing more peaceful forms of political expression. The document elaborates:
After a period of violent opposition to the Egyptian government, the Brotherhood has moderated some of its goals and strategies as its candidates have been able to participate, tacitly in parliamentary elections. Other independent Islamist political parties have also begun to organize and compete, but the government continues to limit electoral competition. Given this context, the primary institution goal for the U.S. in Egypt should be to create opportunities for political participation and good governance at the local and national level. (ibid)
“Changing Course” also suggests that the United States’ hesitance to fully engage in diplomacy with the Brotherhood bespeaks a frivolity that pervades America’s attitude towards the liberalization of Islamic nations:
The U.S. has also sent mixed signals about its willingness to work with nonviolent Islamist parties, notably the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan. This inconsistency reflects a belief shared among many policy makers that there are significant trade-offs between U.S. security interests and our commitment to political reform. Though understandable, these U.S. responses to militants and nonviolent Islamist parties have confirmed the view of many Muslim citizens and mainstream reformers that the U.S. is not serious about political liberalization in Muslim countries. (ibid)
Following these prescriptions would require the United States to abandon sound national security precautions. But placing Americans at risk does not seem to concern the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project.
Enter Dennis Ross and the Neocons
The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is in a position to influence Obama. Dennis Ross, the former Middle East peace envoy under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, provides the conduit. Ross is a member of the Leadership Group of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project (“U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project: Leadership Group On U.S. Muslim Engagement”). According to an Associated Press report, incoming secretary of state Hilary Clinton will most likely appoint Ross as a special advisor for the Middle East and Iran (“Incoming secretary of state Clinton to name Dennis Ross as top advisor on Mideast, Iran”). If Ross takes the job, he will be in a position to foster closer ties between the U.S. government and the Muslim Brotherhood. The already existing connection between the Brotherhood and the darker factions of our government and intelligence community may become an official and formal relationship that is no longer frowned upon.
If this unholy alliance gains legitimacy, the Muslim Brotherhood may become a weapon for those hawks and neoconservatives that survived the purge that accompanied the election of Obama. Ross is a neoconservative. Two documents confirm this contention. In the first document, entitled “Statement on Post-War Iraq,” Ross joined with other neoconservatives in support of military intervention in Iraq (“Statement on Post-War Iraq”). In the second document, entitled “Second Statement on Post-War Iraq,” Ross and his fellow neoconservatives supported then British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s call for a closer partnership between America and Europe (“Second Statement on Post-War Iraq”). Both documents are part of the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative plan, and Ross is a signatory on both.
The first installment of this series established that the election of Obama represented a major power shift in Washington away from the neoconservative faction of the power elite towards the Trilateral clique. This shift was accompanied by a dramatic decrease in the likelihood of an invasion of Iran because the trilateralists favor recruiting Iran as an asset of the American Empire. Neoconservative operatives in the new administration such as Ross, however, may be able to revive neoconservative plans to invade Iran.
Ross has even helped prepare a document that proposes invasion as a viable option to dealing with Iran’s attempts to procure nuclear weapons. Entitled “Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development,” the document is the product of a bipartisan policy group and names Ross as a contributor (“Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development”). “Meeting the Challenge” states that there is a “military component” to “deterrence and containment” (ibid). The report suggests that the U.S. government “consider a declaration of automaticity” (ibid). This declaration would state: “In the event Iran or any suspect proxy utilizes nuclear weapons, Iran will be hit with a devastating retaliatory strike” (ibid). A “devastating retaliatory strike” may even employ nuclear weapons. The report states:
A nuclear deterrent strategy would require moving to a declared U.S. stance threatening the potential use of nuclear weapons should Iran ever use a nuclear weapon or allow its proxies to do so. (ibid)
The report goes on to reiterate this “nuclear deterrent strategy” theme:
The U.S. Administration may need to announce that it reserves the right to respond to any attack against itself or its allies with overwhelming force and, perhaps, nuclear weapons. (ibid)
America must be ready to make good on its threats and “must begin to prepare for such a response” (ibid). This means that the U.S. must “construct alliances needed to station U.S. forces in position to confront Iran” (ibid). Gulf Cooperation Council states such as Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Oman would be called upon to U.S. military forces to use key military facilities that America has access to under defense pacts formed after the 1991 Gulf War (ibid). But the U.S. must also seek “enhanced access to military facilities in countries East, West and North of Iran” (ibid). Overtures must be made toward states such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, and Pakistan in order “to gain their approval to host the U.S. forces and support the staff needed for military action” (ibid).
If the neoconservatives are able to sway the new president, invasion may be back on the table as a viable option. In such an event, the government may look to the Muslim Brotherhood to use its considerable influence and political clout in the Middle East to help build the alliance needed to make an invasion successful. The United States might have to use the religious differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The Brotherhood is a Sunni organization while Shia Islam is the dominant religion of Iran. These differences could possibly motivate the Brotherhood to work towards a consensus among other Arab states concerning an invasion of Iran.
But the task may not be as easy as it sounds. In its bid to become a regional superpower, Iran has begun working past its religious differences with the Brotherhood in order to forge significant ties with the highly influential political movement. In 1992, Iran and Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, began building the bridge by giving sanctuary to 415 leaders of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s offshoot in the Palestinian Gaza Strip (Baer 172-173). Iran has also forged considerable ties with the Islamic Action Front, the Muslim Brotherhood’s branch in Jordan (178). Whatever the outcome of such efforts, one thing is apparent: the government, acting on behalf of various factions of the power elite, is now courting America’s enemies. Such treason is intolerable, but will remain a permanent fixture of the Establishment that currently dominates the American political landscape. Only a restoration of the Constitution will change this sorry state of affairs.
Aussie News & Views's Weblog 