Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

When They Think the West Isn’t Listening, the Muslim Brotherhood Praises bin Laden

I hadn’t seen Stanley’s post until I was just about done writing this, but it is along the same lines. A little background: A few months back, as revolt stirred in Egypt, Obama flaks were telling everyone not to worry about the “largely secular” Muslim Brotherhood because the “moderate” Brothers really can’t stand al-Qaeda — you should hear the way they trash bin Laden. I countered that this was nonsense. The Brotherhood is terrorism-friendly (Hamas, after all, is a Brotherhood branch) but that it plays a sophisticated game to obscure this fact from gullible Westerners — a game that has very much included its treatment of Osama bin Laden. As I wrote at the time:

Occasionally, the Brotherhood condemns terrorist attacks, but not because it regards terrorist violence as wrong per se. Instead, attacks are criticized either as situationally condemnable (al-Qaeda’s 1998 embassy bombings, though directed at American interests, killed many Muslims and were not supported by an authoritative fatwa), or as counterproductive (the 9/11 attacks provoked a backlash that resulted in the invasion and occupation of Muslim countries, the killing of many Muslims, and severe setbacks to the cause of spreading Islam). Yet, on other occasions, particularly in the Arab press, the Ikhwan embraces violence — fueling Hamas and endorsing the murder of Americans in Iraq.

In addition, the Brotherhood even continues to lionize Osama bin Laden. In 2008, for example, “Supreme Guide” Muhammad Mahdi Akef lauded al-Qaeda’s emir, saying that bin Laden is not a terrorist at all but a “mujahid,” a term of honor for a jihad warrior. The Supreme Guide had “no doubt” about bin Laden’s “sincerity in resisting the occupation,” a point on which he proclaimed bin Laden “close to Allah on high.” Yes, Akef said, the Brotherhood opposed the killing of “civilians” — and note that, in Brotherhood ideology, one who assists “occupiers” or is deemed to oppose Islam is not a civilian. But Akef affirmed the Brotherhood’s support for al-Qaeda’s “activities against the occupiers.”

Well, the death of bin Laden has the Brothers at it again. At Pajamas, Sami al-Abasi reports that, in reacting to the al-Qaeda emir’s death, the Brothers put out starkly different statements in English and Arabic.

One of the Brotherhood’s leading members, Essam al-Erian, told Reuters that bin Laden was “one of the reasons for which violence has been practised in the world” — a carefully tailored statement that did not necessarily cast bin Laden as the culprit in this “violence” but would surely be taken by the Brotherhood’s Western apologists as if it had. With bin Laden’s death, Erian said, this “reason for violence” has been “removed,” and therefore that “it is time for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and end the occupation of U.S. and Western forces around the world that have for so long harmed Muslim countries.” Note that, as always, the Brotherhood’s bottom line just happens to be the same bottom line al-Qaeda desires — regardless of what the Brothers may have said about bin Laden in the course of getting down to it.

Now, behold the narrative that appears on the Brotherhood’s Arabic-language website (which Mr. al-Abasi includes at the end of his post). As al-Abasi observes, it not only says nothing disparaging about bin Laden; it actually refers to him as “Sheikh” Osama bin Laden, using an honorific intended to convey admiration. Moreover, the raid against bin Laden’s compound is condemned as an assassination, and the Brotherhood demands that America stay out of the internal affairs of Arab and Muslim countries, blaming the West for launching a media campaign to demonize Islam. Speaking specifically about Iraq and Afghanistan, the Brotherhood “confirms that the legitimate resistance against foreign occupation, for any country is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine law and international convention.” As al-Abasi correctly concludes:

By supporting violence against America’s troops in Muslim lands, the MB essentially defends the al-Qaeda campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. The [Brotherhood] also instructs the United States to stop its intelligence operations in Muslim lands, the key source of information that led to bin Laden’s killing. It furthers support the “legitimate resistance” of Palestinian groups against Israel, and tells the U.S. to do the same. So while the MB claims to have renounced violence, it has honored bin Laden as a sheikh and called for terrorism against American forces in Muslim lands.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   7

EXPAND  

Hauser
   05/03/11 12:02

Interesting article, but frankly, it's hard to take anything Andy says seriously anymore after he declared Obama and Osama are part of one "Grand Jihad" alliance. So take anything this laughingstock says with a grain (or a ton) of salt.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
sombreros divertidos
   05/03/11 12:25

Hauser,
What did A. McCarthy say here other than the words you attribute to him in your post? I read him in this article reporting what others have said.

That the Muslim Brotherhood says one thing in English and another in Arabic, and that it is hostile to us and friendly to OBL and his ilk is unsurprising. It's not even news. But I appreciate seeing it here as I know many people don't know. They should.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   05/03/11 12:41

Don't worry Hauser, I'm sure nobody takes anything you have to say too seriously. You can go back to the sand now, I'm sure your head was getting too cold outside of it.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   05/03/11 13:13

The Muslim Brotherhood publicly condemns the raid on bin Laden's compound as an "assassination" but they do so only for the oh-so-delicate Western ear.

Do those who support mass murder really have the moral high ground to complain about the assassination of the leader who was intent on making the biggest splash in mass murder terror attacks? Don't make me laugh.

The blood on Osama bin Laden's hands came from mass murder intent in 2 World Trade Center Attacks, the Pentagon, the U.S.S. Cole, the Embassy bombing in Nairobi, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, numerous foiled/failed attempts like the Christmas Panty bomber, and some successful smaller scale attacks like Major Hassan's attack at Fort Hood, Texas.

Only fools will be shamed by the accusations of the Muslim Brotherhood or any of their other Islamist terrorist cohorts.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Justin in Philadelphia
   05/03/11 13:33

I've been going over thoughts of what an absolute punch to the gut Sunday's news must have been (and will continue to be) for the leaders of the international Jihad - such as those heading the Muslim Brotherhood.

I wonder how many actually knew that the man was still alive and hiding somewhere. How many simply believed he was alive based on rumor and hope? And how many others believed him to have simply melted away years ago, propelling himself onto another plane - the man who struck America and got away with it; a patron saint, a ghost that would guide them on the battlefield?

The psychological blow resulting from the news that your demi-god was just hunted down and shot in the face would be, I would think, profound. After the initial shock of hearing the news, I would venture to guess that these jihadist's thoughts turned next to anger and hate - but as the hours have passed there has been a dark, deep and profound dread that has crept into their minds and hearts.

In haiku:

The Sheikh Mujahid
America just threw his
corpse in the ocean

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jack_Davis
   05/03/11 15:57

In the matter of Osama bin Laden:

Thank you, President George W. Bush, for your administration's use of "enhanced interrogations." I tip my hat to you, sir.

And thank you, men and women of our armed services and intelligence communities for closing out OBL's account.

Well done!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Arms Merchant
   05/04/11 16:25

The main talking point of the U.S. government to Muslim countries should be "Freedom of Religion." Nothing shows the hypocrisy of Islamic supremacists in more stark contrast than upholding Western values like freedom of conscience.

It's also a way to criticize intolerance of Islamic governments like Pakistan's without criticizing Muslims per se, and we need to hammer them as often as possible on this. Otherwise, be prepared to accept the gradual descent of formerly secular governments like Turkey's into Islamism.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact