http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31650427
The man who has been named as Islamic State militant “Jihadi John” was a “beautiful young man” according to Asim Qureshi, the research director of the London-based campaign group Cage.
Mr Quershi said it was “hard to imagine” how Mohammed Emwazi, a Kuwaiti-born Briton in his mid-20s from London, came to appear in videos of Western hostages being beheaded.
Several members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) recently reported on their social media accounts that a delegation of MB members had visited the U.S. State Department on January 27, 2015 and met with officials from the State Department and White House, as well as with members of Congress and representatives from American research institutes. According to the MB reports, the purpose of the meeting was to recruit support for their opposition to the ‘Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi regime in Egypt.”[1]
On its part, the American administration was embarrassed by the publication of the visit, but openly acknowledged it a few days later. State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki said that the MB members were part of a larger delegation that included former Egyptian MPs, among others, and that they are not currently active in the movement. She added that State Department meetings with various political elements were routine. The Egyptian regime, outraged by the visit, accused the U.S. administration of not respecting the Egyptian law that defines the MB as a terrorist organization, and of discounting the will of the Egyptian people. It also claimed that this conduct flies in the face of U.S. policy, which champions the struggle against global terrorism. Criticism of the U.S. was also voiced in the official Egyptian press and in the Saudi press.The fact that the reports on the visit coincided with the January 31 large-scale terrorist attack in Al-‘Arish, in which 31 people were killed and which the Egyptian regime and media attributed to the MB, only increased the rage towards the U.S. Some articles even accused it of being behind the attack itself.
This report will review the reports on the MB members’ visit to the U.S. and the subsequent outrage in Egypt.
MB Members Report Visit To U.S. State Department On Their Facebook Pages
The delegation, which officially represented the Egyptian Revolutionary Council – a body comprising MB activists and supporters – included Waleed Sharaby, a pro-MB Egyptian judge; Dr. Gamal Heshmat, who was an MP during the Mursi era and was recently chosen to head the MB’s parliament in exile, based in Turkey; Dr. ‘Abd Al-Mawgood Dardery, a member of the MB’s Freedom and Justice Party, who was also an MP during the Mursi era; Tharwat Nafea‘, former Mursi-era MP and one of the heads of the MB’s parliament in exile; and Maha ‘Azzam, former researcher of political Islam at the British Chatham House research institute, and head of the Egyptian Revolutionary Council.[2]
According to Sharaby, the Egyptian Revolutionary Council delegation recently visited more than 27 countries.[3] In the run-up to the fourth anniversary of the revolution that ousted Mubarak on January 25, the council also sent letters to 19 foreign ministers and the heads of three international organizations in an attempt to convince them to end support for “the military coup regime in Egypt.”[4]
As stated above, the delegation members took to their Facebook accounts to report on the meetings they had held, and even posted photos of themselves in the State Department building. Some of the pictures feature members holding up four fingers in the “Rabaa” sign, which has become associated with the MB and its supporters.
From Waleed Sharaby’s Facebook page: “Currently in the American Congress” (from left to right: Maha ‘Azzam, ‘Abd Al-Mawgood Dardery, Tharwat Nafea’, Gamal Heshmat, Waleed Sharaby; Facebook.com/waleed.sharaby, January 28, 2015)
Another Facebook post by Sharaby: “Currently in the American State Department” (Facebook.com/waleed.sharaby, January 26, 2015)
Facebook post by delegation member Gamal Heshmat: “Meetings with American State Department, White House representative, members of Congress, and with research institutes that influence American policy were positive…” (Facebook.com/Dr.GamalHeshmat1, January 29, 2015)
U.S. Administration: Hosting The Delegation – Part Of Routine Meetings With Politicians
The delegation’s visit to the State Department was made public only when the images were posted to Facebook – embarrassing the U.S. administration. It appears that this embarrassment was also the reason for the delay in the administration’s response to reporters’ questions on the matter. When first asked about the affair in a daily briefing on January 27, 2015, State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that she had no details on the visit. Only two days later, when asked again, Psaki confirmed the visit, but stressed that it was not an MB delegation, but rather a delegation including former Egyptian MPs, some of whom were from the MB’s Freedom and Justice Party. Psaki said: “The State Department officials met with a group of visiting Egyptian former parliamentarians whose visit to the United States was organized and funded by Georgetown University. These meetings are fairly routine. The group included some former members of the Freedom and Justice Party, among others…” Psaki mentioned that the delegation had met with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, among others, and that the topic of president Mursi’s ouster had not been discussed.
When asked whether the delegation members had breached protocol by posting pictures of their visit to the State Department on social media, Psaki said that many visitors took pictures and that she wasn’t convinced this constituted any violation or that it was an issue. When a reporter pointed out that the pictures were used to show that the State Department supports the MB, Psaki repeated that the meeting had been with a mixed delegation that included former members of the Freedom and Justice Party. When asked about a recent post on the MB website that calls for “a long, uncompromising jihad” and for drawing inspiration from the MB’s old military wing,[5] Psaki said she was unaware of this and that she would look into it.[6]
On January 30, 2015, the same day the administration admitted that the meeting had taken place, the Egyptian Revolutionary Council also issued a statement on the delegation’s visit to the U.S. According to the statement, the delegation met with representatives from the White House and State Department, as well as with congressmen and some American research institutes, with the purpose of conveying several messages: that the events in Egypt on June 30, 2013 were a military coup against the legitimate, democratically elected Mursi regime, and that the American administration should stop supporting the “unstable and unsustainable” Al-Sisi regime; that the Egyptian judiciary is persecuting the political opponents of the military regime; and that the Egyptian military should return to its barracks and keep out of Egyptian politics. According to the council’s statement, various bodies that were recently established, and various actions that were carried out, were a response to the crimes of the military regime: to the terrorism, arrests and torture conducted by security forces against peaceful protestors, and to the justice system’s lack of neutrality. Finally, the statement says that the meetings were positive and ended in recommendations for additional meetings in the future.[7]
Al-Sisi: The MB Is The World’s Most Dangerous Secret Terrorist Organization; Egyptian Foreign Minister: The U.S. Must Respect Egyptian Law, Which Defines The MB As A Terrorist Organization
On January 31, 2015, the day after the U.S. administration confirmed the delegation’s visit, in a statement to the press at the close of the African Union summit in Addis Ababa, the Egyptian President refrained from addressing the delegation’s visit to the State Department, but said that the MB was “the world’s most dangerous secret terrorist organization” and that it “has clandestine wings and secret ideas and tools… which is why Egyptians rose up against it…”[8]
The Egyptian Foreign Ministry expressed outrage at the U.S. State Department’s hosting of the MB delegation. At the end of the African Union summit, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry addressed the State Department’s explanation, saying: “I do not understand [the State Department’s] claims. We do not understand the existence of such ties with elements that are involved in terrorist activists meant to terrify Egyptians.” He added: “The MB movement is not a political party. Egyptian law – which should be respected, just as we respect the laws of others – defines it as a terrorist organization, based on evidence and testimony we have that indicates their involvement in terrorist actions meant to harm the lives of Egyptians, terrorize them, and threaten their security.” Shoukry said further: “If we wanted to bury our heads in the sand so as not to face reality, that would be another matter. But we see very well.” According to him, “terrorism is not just ISIS or Boko Haram, but rather all terrorist groups, regardless of what name they use, since they [all] champion the same ideology and the same ideas leading to death and destruction…”[9]
An Egyptian Foreign Ministry communique from February 1, 2015 states that the Egyptian Revolutionary Council and the MB’s parliament in exile consistently incite violence and terrorism, spread lies abroad regarding the situation in Egypt, and do not represent the will of the Egyptian people. Moreover, some of their members are wanted by the Egyptian authorities, and therefore holding ties with these “illegitimate organizations disrespects the will of Egyptians and grants legitimacy to entities that attack it.” The communiqué states further: “The contacts held by some countries with these terrorist entities enable them to spread their ideas, which incite violence and terrorism. They also contradict [these countries’] presumed commitment to the struggle against terrorism and extremism…”[10]
Egyptian Columnists Attack U.S. Hypocrisy In War On Terror
The Egyptian press was also furious with the U.S. administration for hosting the MB members. Several articles accused the U.S. of hypocrisy and double standards regarding terrorism, stating that the U.S., which calls to combat global terrorism, actually supports the mother organization of global terrorism – the MB. Some articles also tied the Al-‘Arish attack to the MB members’ visit to the U.S., and accused the U.S. of fostering terrorism in Egypt.
‘Al-Ahram’ Editor: Egypt Should Boycott Washington Counter-Terrorism Summit In February 2015
In a February 6, 2015 column, Al-Ahram editor Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam accused the American administration of being two-faced regarding terrorism and called on Egypt to boycott the Washington Counter-Terrorism Summit in mid-February (a call which the Egyptian foreign minister did not heed). ‘Allam wrote: “After the Charlie Hebdo events in Paris… The White House issued a stern statement calling to convene an international summit in Washington on February 18, 2015, to deal with the danger of extremist organizations… [But] the Americans’ current path raises questions and does not provide answers regarding their vague policy, which only increases confusion regarding events in the Arab region. How can a superpower that speaks of combating terrorist groups argue at the same time that their mother organization – the MB – does not threaten the interests of countries that are its friends and allies, despite [the MB’s] methods of violence and sabotage?… Last week, new details were exposed in Washington regarding ties held by U.S. authorities with the MB, after the State Department was forced to admit that it had held a special meeting with a delegation of leaders of the global MB organization, fugitives from justice who arrived in the American capital…
“Some may claim that it is in Egypt’s interest to attend the Washington summit and that presenting the positions of the Egyptian political leadership [at this summit] could change the positions of some U.S. elements regarding the extremist groups who all draw [their ideas] from the same source… [However,] not attending [will send a message] to the world that there is a certain flaw in the [American] policy that condemns terrorism on the one hand and is forgiving of it on the one hand, and that this policy lacks a proper compass and lacks the wisdom that should be at the base of the superpowers’ positions at this crucial stage of Middle East history… [Egypt] not attending [the summit] will convey its message to the free world, namely that there is a clearly laid-out plan to crumble the Middle East into weak statelets, where Western forces will negotiate with extremist groups that realize the interest of certain countries to take over regional resources…
“It seems that the American administration wants a meaningless ‘public relations summit’ that does not [really] strive for clear resolutions on dealing with extremist organizations, chiefly the MB, which the Egyptian nation ejected from its midst, and which sister Arab governments have [also] outlawed, alongside other entities that are no less dangerous. The question for those in charge of the American summit is: Have you not considered that, for the summit to succeed, you must publicly declare that you wash your hands of the forces of global terrorism? Did you not consider the fact that you cannot organize a summit attended by the same very elements that are part of the problem… such as Qatar… and the Turkish government…?
“[Our] vital relations with the U.S. should not prevent us from pointing to the weaknesses and sources of danger in the current American policy, which proceeds blindfolded. This, while senior American writers and analysts recognize that current American policy requires a new compass, after it was proven that the policy implemented in recent decades merely leads to more confusion and frustration… We want American officials to understand that we are better versed in the matters of this region than others, and that [their] illusion that supporting the streams of political Islam [will enable them to] play a role in dividing control [of the region] will only lead the region to crumble further and will increase discontentment there. Then the U.S. will find itself dealing with the heritage of hatred for its policy on a much larger scale than today.
“Future generations will see the U.S. as the only country that stood by extremism and terrorism to the end, instead of changing its choices and recognizing that the peoples are entitled to life and to modern states that ensure everyone’s rights without discrimination and which remove the dust of ignorance, hatred and sectarianism…”[11]
The article was accompanied by the following cartoon:
U.S. calls to “stop ISIS terrorism” while ignoring and sheltering “MB terrorism in Egypt”
U.S. Raises Banner Of War On Terror, While Supporting Terror
Muhammad Abu Al-Fadel, a columnist for the government Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, wrote in a similar vein: “The international handling [of terrorism] should be uniform and balanced, and free of hypocrisy or political manipulation. Following the recent events in Egypt [i.e. the January 31 terror attack in Al-‘Arish], several countries in the world – the same world that was outraged by the [terrorist] events in France – expressed mere condemnation and sympathetic words, shamefully contradicting [them with their actions]. The U.S., which following the France events called for an international conference on terrorism in Washington, was one of the countries [whose words] most contradicted [its actions]; mere days after calling [for the conference], it hosted some MB leaders, receiving them with warm friendship. This was despite the fact that they and their ilk are at the movement’s forefront, and are some of the main inciters of the terrorism and violence that struck Al-‘Arish and various provinces in Egypt in the recent days.
“The Washington officials could not justify the warm welcome they had given to the [MB] figures, whom the world has seen openly encouraging violence and cheering, together with others like them, whenever an Egyptian soldier or policeman is killed. Using groundless pretexts, [Washington] merely said that it had received [these leaders] as part of its openness to [various] political forces. What forces is the U.S. talking about, when it [itself] bears the motto of combating terrorism in the world while at the same time carrying a sign supporting it?…
“Those who see the joy on the faces of [the MB members hosed by the State Department]… so apparent in the photos that they uploaded to their websites, get the sense that they have won another round. For the thousandth time, Washington proves that it has no good intentions towards Egypt, and that it remains determined to not change its faulty perceptions giving supporters of violence an elixir of life every time they face imminent political and security defeat.
“The problem is that the U.S., which presumes to lead a global war on terror, completely ignores the fact that its despicable policy has [actually] played a crucial role in fueling it… Egypt was not the only one to warn that terrorism is a single entity, from Iraq through Syria and Libya to Yemen. Some in the West heeded [this], and quickly coordinated and cooperated with us; some stopped up their ears so as not to hear such counsel which troubles them. [But] this was not enough [for these latter who did not want to hear]; they went on to deliberately attract terrorists to them by defending their methods of operation, which often come in the guise of humanitarianism and human rights…
“Recently, several observers in the U.S. did well to refuse to receive MB leaders, but these [elements] need to also prescribe a treatment for the American administration that sponsors and will lead the February 18, 2015 Washington Counter-Terrorism Summit. Maybe then [this administration] will understand the failures in the path it is taking, and will acknowledge the real situation in Egypt and change its perspective…”[12]
MB member says to ISIS member on the steps of the White House: “They welcomed me, which means that they welcomed you, so the house is your house.” (Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’, Egypt, February 6, 2015)
The U.S. Is Extending The MB’s Life Of Terrorism
Makram Mohamed Ahmed, another columnist for Al-Ahram, also attacked the U.S., writing: “The support that the [MB] movement received from Washington, as manifested by the White House meetings, is an important factor that spurs them to continue their plans and pushes them towards more idiotic adventures that set them on the path of perdition, after their rapid failure at all their previous attempts. However extensive the foreign support they muster, they [still] cannot defeat the people, the military, the police, and all the institutions of Egyptian civil society, especially because everyone knows that if the MB return [to power] over the objections of the Egyptian people, it will mean, God forbid, inevitable civil war…
“The problem lies with the American position, which we know full well is the only thing extending the MB’s life of terrorism. Although the power balance on the ground in Egypt clearly and decisively confirms that the movement cannot possibly be victorious, the Obama administration continues its dirty game, supports terrorism, threatens Egypt’s stability, and revives in the minds of the peoples of the region the image of the ugly American that seeks to impose on Egypt a backwards tyrannical regime that has no base of legitimacy and is detested by a clear majority of the Egyptian people.”[13]
The U.S. Is Responsible For Al-‘Arish Terror Attack And Is Working To Topple Egyptian Regime
In another column in Al-Ahram, the daily’s former editor Morsi ‘Atallah wrote: “Apparently, the U.S. has learned nothing from its series of failed experiments in the region and its repeated gambling on agents and mercenaries in the service of American interests. It is now deluding itself regarding the possibility to repeat what it did in Iraq to prepare the ground for toppling Saddam Hussein‘s regime, without realizing that the Al-Sisi regime, which enjoys popular and Arab support, is nothing like Saddam’s…
“It is now obvious that the U.S. is continuing to cast its lot with the policy of ‘destructive chaos’[14] formulated by [former U.S. secretary of state] Condoleezza Rice… Therefore, it can in no way be considered an exaggeration to accuse the U.S. of sponsoring terrorist organizations, and to hold it responsible for the Al-‘Arish crime and the crimes that preceded it. The U.S. is to blame, and is involved in the events on the ground in Egypt; this is not unusual for a country that welcomes ties with those who have neither identity nor affiliation, and who are not against turning the homeland into rental property or into an investment firm and satellite of the American master…”[15]
U.S. Policy Regarding Political Islam Is Plagued By Ignorance And Double Standards
In his column in the Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Yawm, which is close to the regime, Muhammad Salmawi wrote: “The [MB officials’ State Department] meeting has grave implications, as it proves that Washington has not deviated one bit from its policy of double standards: It fights the terrorism of political Islam as it provides it with aid and support. This policy stems from a highly dangerous notion that there is a ‘moderate’ political Islam, and that if Washington can maintain close relations with it, it could control the extremist elements within it. This idea, if it shows anything, shows the U.S.’s absolute ignorance regarding the nature of this political Islam, and regarding its history since the founding of the MB in 1928…
“The MB movement is the mother organization that birthed all the world’s political Islam movements, without exception… If these movements use violence to achieve their goals, it is because the MB itself grew through violence… This deceptive policy of both Washington and the MB will have disastrous consequences that will prevent any future attempt at [Egypt’s] reconciliationwith both the MB and American foreign policy.”[16]
Saudi Daily: U.S. Administration Does Not Grasp The Scope Of Opposition To The MB In The Middle East
The February 3, 2015 editorial of the Saudi Al-Watan daily. Titles “America and the MB – The Mistake Is Repeating Itself,” also addressed the MB officials’ State Department visit: “The hosting of a delegation of the terrorist MB movement by the U.S. State Department sparked widespread criticism by some American analysts, because the State Department, and the Obama administration in general, have yet to grasp the scope of the extensive popular opposition to the MB movement across the Middle East – particularly in the wake of the June 30, 2013 mass protests, the likes of which had never before been seen in Egypt…
“History proves that peoples always emerge victorious in their campaigns against the forces of darkness and destruction. Furthermore, all political Islam movements must realize that every crime they commit or to which they are an accessory increases the popular opposition to them. They must understand that the world’s confidence in Egypt’s trends and policy will not be harmed, and that their desperate attempts to disrupt the [mid-March 2015] economic summit [in Sharm Al-Sheikh that Al-Sisi is organizing] will not succeed…”[17]
“War on Terror” (Al-Watan, Saudi Arabia, February 6, 2015)
Endnotes:
[1] Ikhwanweb.com, January 31, 2015. The delegation attended a panel hosted by Washington’s Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), which is sponsored by Georgetown University. Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), February 2, 2015.
[2] Facebook.com/ercegypt1, January 24, 2015.
[3] Fj-p.com, January 27, 2015.
[4] Facebook.com/ercegypt1, January 24, 2015.
[5] Ikhwanonline.com, January 27, 2015.
[6] State.gov, January 30, 2015.
[7] Ikhwanweb.com, January 31, 2015.
[8] Al-Ahram (Egypt), January 31, 2015; Youtube.com/watch?v=CT5nejGeE7A.
[9] Al-Shurouq (Egypt), January 31, 2015.
[10] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), February 1, 2015.
[11] Al-Ahram (Egypt), February 6, 2015.
[12] Al-Ahram (Egypt), February 1, 2015.
[13] Al-Ahram (Egypt), February 3, 2015.
[14] Arab writers’ pun on the term “creative chaos” attributed to Condoleezza Rice.
[15] Al-Ahram (Egypt), February 1, 2015.
[16] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), February 1, 2015.
[17] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), February 3, 2015.
Source : Memri
While it is unlikely to be banned here, the organisation has links to groups widely regarded as terrorist
THE GOVERNMENT is preparing a major clampdown on organisations linked to the terror group Hamas after the longawaited publication of its review into the Muslim Brotherhood.
The review, by the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins, has been delayed for months amid disputes about how strongly it should say the Brotherhood is linked to terrorism.
It is expected to say that the Brotherhood, a multifaceted organisation, is not itself a terrorist group and should not be banned, a verdict most analysts agree with.
However, the report will dismiss claims by the Brotherhood that there is “no evidence” of links between it and terrorism. “There are clear links and Jenkins will trigger further action against some Brotherhood and Hamas-linked groups,” said one official source. Many of the groups have already been squeezed by removing their bank accounts.
Only a summary of the Jenkins report will be published. However, a separate investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found a number of clear overlaps between the Brotherhood’s UK operations and those of organisations linked to Hamas, which is banned as a terrorist organisation throughout the Western world. In particular, it is striking how often they appear to share premises.
One person involved in counterextremism said: “When you start forensically going through the names and locations, there’s no way the Brotherhood can keep up the denials.”
The Sunday Telegraph has established that the main hubs for the Brotherhood’s operations in Europe are Westgate House, a serviced office block at the Hangar Lane roundabout in Ealing, west London, and Crown House, about half a mile north of it on the North Circular Road.
The two buildings contain at least 25 organisations linked to the Brotherhood, or to Hamas. A third building very close by – Pinnacle House on Old Oak Common Lane – houses Interpal, another major charity which has had close links to the Brotherhood and Hamas. Interpal is banned by the US government as a terrorist organisation.
Interpal is allowed to operate in the UK after claiming it has broken its links with Hamas, a claim accepted by the Charity Commission.
However, its managing trustee, Essam Mustafa, was pictured just over a year ago accompanying the Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, on an official visit in Gaza. The two were later filmed clapping and singing together. Mr Mustafa is a former member of Hamas’s executive committee.
The organisations based at Westgate House include the Cordoba Foundation, described by David Cameron as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood” and run by Anas al-Tikriti, the key spokesman and lobbyist for the Brotherhood in Britain, though he claims not to be a member himself. The Cordoba Foundation’s office is on the seventh floor of the building.
Mr al-Tikriti states openly that “the Brotherhood supports Hamas. I believe that if you are occupied you need to fight back.” Mr al-Tikriti co-founded a group called the British Muslim Initiative with a senior commander in Hamas, Mohammed Sawalha, and a Hamas “special envoy,” Azzam Tamimi.
The seventh floor of Westgate House also houses the Muslim Charities Forum, an umbrella body for 10 British charities, at least six of which have funded Hamas organisations and most of which can also be linked to the Brotherhood.
The Muslim Charities Forum was stripped of £250,000 in Government grants in December in what the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, described as a decision to “cease funding any organisation that supports or is linked to individuals who fuel hatred, division and violence.” More than £100,000 of the grant has already been paid, however.
Six of the Muslim Charities Forum’s 10 members are or were members of the Union of Good, also known as the 101 Days Campaign. The Union of Good is designated by the US Treasury Department as a terrorist organisation created by the Hamas leadership “in order to facilitate the transfer of funds to Hamas”.
The Union of Good is chaired by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a key intellectual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who has twice turned down offers to become its political leader.
Mr Al-Qaradawi, who is banned from the UK, is a strong supporter of suicide bombings, describing Israeli civilians as legitimate targets. The Union of Good’s founder and general secretary was Essam Mustafa, the managing trustee of the British charity Interpal.
Members of the Muslim Charities Forum include Muslim Aid, which has admitted funding organisations run by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad; Islamic Help, which works closely with a Hamas front organisation in Gaza; Muslim Hands, which also funds Hamas front bodies; and Human Appeal International, accused by the FBI, CIA and in the leaked US diplomatic telegrams of funding Hamas and of other terrorist links.
The Brotherhood’s objective is to replace secular democratic government with an Islamic caliphate under sharia law. Members swear an oath of allegiance declaring that “the Quran is our constitution” and “to die for the sake of God is our greatest objective”.
The Brotherhood’s leaders insist that it works democratically – albeit to secure the replacement of democracy – and says the British Government review is a form of “pandering” by Britain to Gulf dictatorships.
Hamas’s 1988 founding charter states that it is “one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine”, but the British government has tended to treat Hamas and the Brotherhood as unconnected.
The organisations based at Crown House comprise broadly the Brotherhood’s UK outreach wing. They include the Palestinian Return Centre, the Brotherhood campaign group with the closest links to mainstream politics. The PRC last month met David Quarrey, director for the Middle East at the Foreign Office, according to its website, and was also present at the Labour Friends of Palestine annual dinner in November, addressed by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband. Many MPs have spoken at its events.
The PRC has close links to the Brotherhood, sharing directors with the Muslim Association of Britain, the Brotherhood’s main declared British affiliate.
However, it is also claimed by the Israeli government to be “Hamas’s organisational branch in Europe” whose members are “senior Hamas leaders who promote the movement’s agenda in Europe”.
The PRC denies these claims. However, it has regularly hosted Hamas leaders, including Mr Haniyeh, at its annual conferences.
Other organisations at Crown House are Middle East Monitor (Memo), a news site which promotes a strongly pro-Brotherhood and pro-Hamas view of the region. Memo’s director, Daud Abdullah, is also a leader of the Brotherhood-linked British Muslim Initiative, set up and run by the Brotherhood activist Anas al-Tikriti and two senior figures in Hamas.
Memo’s “senior editor”, Ibrahim Hewitt, is chairman of Interpal, the Hamas and Brotherhoodlinked charity.
Another organisation at Crown House is the Emirates Centre for Human Rights (ECHR), also set up by Anas al-Tikriti. Its website was registered to his wife, Malath Shakir.
Its founding director, Abdus Salam, is the husband of Mr al-Tikriti’s sister.
The ECHR has co-organised at least two meetings at the House of Commons with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Rights. The ECHR’s director, Anas Mekdad, has personally tweeted supporting recent terrorist attacks in Jerusalem. He is the founder of AlMakeen Network, a UK-based website which also publishes articles praising the Brotherhood, Hamas and suicide bombings.
Other extremist organisations based at Crown House, though not formally linked to the Brotherhood, include the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA), which sends extremist preachers around British universities and mosques.
Both Westgate House and Crown House have other tenants and there is no suggestion that all their tenants are Islamists or extremists.
© 2015 Sunday Telegraph (UK). All rights reserved.Sunday Telegraph (UK)Sunday, February 8, 2015, p. 4
On February 4, 2015, the Egyptian news website Akhbarak.net reported that the Qatari Fatwa Center, a body belonging to the Qatari government, had removed from its website a fatwa permitting execution by burning. The Fatwa Center is part of Qatar’s Religious Da’wa and Guidance Authority, which belongs to this country’s ministry of religious endowments and Islamic affairs. According to Akhbarak, the Fatwa Center removed the fatwa from its website, Islamweb.net,[1] a few hours after the burning of the Jordanian pilot, Mu’adh Al-Kasasbeh, by the Islamic State (ISIS) became known. However, a search of this site reveals that the fatwa, issued in June 2009, is still available on another part of the Qatari website,[2] as well as two earlier fatwas that make a similar point.
The June 2009 fatwa was issued in response to a query by a reader who asked whether it was permissible to execute a Muslim by burning, adding that someone had told him about such cases.[3]The fatwa issued in reply stated that, as a rule, the shari’a forbids burning people alive, but that some scholars were inclined to permit this as part of the principle of “measure for measure.” This fatwa is similar in its content and conclusion to the fatwa issued by ISIS in the Syrian city of Raqqa to justify the burning of the Jordanian pilot, though ISIS’s fatwa was issued in response to a question about the burning of infidels, not Muslims. [4] ISIS’s fatwa stated that the burning of the pilot was justified because he had carried out airstrikes on Muslims, thereby causing them to be burned alive.
The following are excerpts from the three fatwas on the Qatari website.
The June 2009 fatwa on the Islamweb site
Some Religious Scholars Were Inclined To Permit This
“Question: Is it permissible to punish a Muslim, Sunni or Shi’ite, by burning him? Please inform me, because I received an email about a Muslim being burned, and I answered the person who sent me the email [with a quote from the hadith]: ‘only the God of fire may punish with fire.’ But he opposed my position to the point that I started to doubt its correctness.’
“Answer: According to the shari’a, punishment by fire is forbidden, regardless of a person’s status, for it is written in the hadith: ‘only the God of fire may punish with fire’… [So] this deed is a sin that is forbidden because of the injustice it involves. As for a punishment imposed by the Muslim leader on criminals, it is better for one who is deserving of death to be punished with an appropriate death, according to the hadith that says, ‘if you must kill, then kill in the best manner’…
“[However,] some scholars advocated killing [a murderer] in the same way he killed [his victim], as written in the book Mukhtasar Khalil [by 14th century scholar Khalil ibn IshaqAl-Maliki]: ‘He must be put to death in the way he killed, even by fire.’ In the Al-Sahihain collection of hadiths [it is said] that the Messenger of Allah ‘crushed the skull of a Jew with two stones, just as [that Jew] did to the slave girl he killed.'”[5]
Caliph Abu Bakr Punished A Man With Fire
At the end of the fatwa, links to two other fatwas are provided. One of them, titled “The Burning of Iyas bin ‘Abd Yalil by the Righteous [Caliph] Abu Bakr,” was issued in February 2006 in response to the following question: “How can we reconcile the Prophet’s ban on burning with fire with [Caliph] Abu Bakr’s burning of Iyas bin ‘Abd Yalil during the Ridda Wars?…”
The fatwa issued in reply stated: “The Prophet’s ban is valid. According to the honorable hadith,the Prophet said: ‘only the God of fire may punish with fire’… [However], religious scholars were divided on whether this ban is absolute, or is only meant to [instill] humility [towards God]. [Shafi’i jurisprudent] Ibn Hajar [Al-‘Asqalani] said in his book Fath Al-Bari: “This ban is not meant to prohibit [burning], but only to [instill] humility. The actions of the Prophet’s Companions indicate that burning is permissible. The Prophet blinded members of the ‘Uraina tribe with a hot iron. [Caliph] Abu Bakr punished criminals by burning in the presence of the Prophet’s Companions, and [the Prophet’s Companion] Khalid Ibn Al-Walid [also] burned people from among the apostates. Most of the scholars of Medina permitted to burn horses and chariots with the people inside… [Conversely, the scholar] Ibn Al-Munir and others said: ‘There is no evidence [to support the view] of those who say it is permissible. The [punishment] of the ‘Uraina tribesmen was in retaliation [for their deeds], or else was abolished [as a form of punishment]. Moreover, [we see that] a permit by one Companion of the Prophet contradicts a ban by another Companion.[6] The case of the horses and chariots is a matter of necessity; that is, [such an act] is permissible if it is the way to overcome the enemy.’
“The story about Abu Bakr’s burning of the believer Iyas bin ‘Abd Yalil is recounted in the books of biography and history. [It is said:] ‘Iyas bin ‘Abd Yalil came to Abu Bakr and said to him: Give me weapons so I can fight the apostates. [Abu Bakr] supplied him with weapons and appointed him commander, but [Iyas] turned against the Muslims… Abu Bakr discovered this, and sent people to arrest [Iyas] and fetch him. Abu Bakr ordered to light a fire in the Medina mosque, and then he pitched [Iyas] into it, swaddled in cloths.’
“Thus, the scholars were divided with regard to the ban on burning by fire, as we have clarified, and those of them who said that this was forbidden made exceptions for cases in which this was permitted. There is no doubt that Iyas bin ‘Abd Yalil’s deed justified his burning. May Allah maximize the reward of the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah for his zeal for Islam.”[7]
Islam Permits Punishment Measure For Measure
The third fatwa, titled “The Limits of the Principle of Measure for Measure” and issued March 5, 2009, responds to a reader who asked how one could determine when to apply the rule of measure for measure against the enemies of the Muslims, and when not to apply it. The fatwa states:[8]
“The correct principle of Islam is that there is permission to punish measure for measure, as long as this is does not violate our religion… The Koran commentators said that whoever is harmed by an unjust deed will have vengeance against the one who transgressed against him, if he succeeds in overcoming him, in a way that is similar to the injustice done to him, and he must not deviate from this to other deeds. In light of this, it is possible to kill a murderer as vengeance in the way that he killed… and for this reason, the Maliki [scholar] Khalil said in his book Mukhtasar [Khalil], ‘He will be killed as he killed, even by fire, but not by means of intoxication or by means of sodomy’…”
The author of the fatwa stressed, “But if the aggressor kills in a way that is forbidden by shari’a, he must not be killed in a way that Allah has forbidden… The ratio of measure for measure is permitted as long as it [does not involve an act] forbidden by our religion.”
Source Memri.org
Endnotes:
[1] A link to this website is also found on the Qatari government portal, which invites readers to “contact Islamweb, which belongs to the Ministry of Religious Endowments and Islamic Affairs in the State of Qatar, for a shari’a opinion on any topic of interest.”
[2] See: http://www.islamweb.net/ramadan/index.php?page=ShowFatwa&lang=A&Id=123722&Option=FatwaId
[3] In 2008 there were reports that the Islamic State of Iraq (the previous incarnation of ISIS) had burned Iraqi tribesmen it had taken captive. Perhaps these were the incidents of which the asker had heard.
[4] See MEMRI JTTM report, “ISIS Issues Fatwa To Justify Burning Of Jordanian Pilot,” February 4, 2015.
[5] Islamweb.net, June 17, 2009.
[6] This means to say that there are other stories about the Prophet’s companions that indicate burning is forbidden, and therefore the stories about Abu Bakr and Khalid Ibn Al-Walid cannot be taken as conclusive evidence for the permissibility of burning.
[7] Islamweb.net, February 7, 2009.
[8] Islamweb.net, March 5, 2009.
Each year, the Cojep, an organization formed by some Alsace-based Turks, distributes a number of awards. In January 2015, the awards were distributed as follows:
The organization, which is close to Erdogan‘s AKP, does not hesitate to protest whenever certain personalities of Turkish origin support Taksim protesters:
“This attitude offends most Turkish associations in the city, which overwhelmingly support AKP and Recep Erdogan, and represent a significant part of Strasbourg voters” (Press release dated 5 June 2013)
The organization is also unhappy when politicians insist on acknowledging the Armenian genocide. And therefore rants about it: “The Socialist Party is very much influenced by the speech of the Armenian diaspora in our country.”
COJEP officials enjoying a selfy moment with their contemporary hero: Erdogan.
This post is also available in Français.
On January 10, 2015, the cleric Salama ‘Abd Al-Qawi received thunderous applause from the studio audience on a program on the Turkey-based MB-linked Rabea TV channel, when he said that it would not be at all bad if someone were to assassinate President Al-Sisi. He added that anyone who did so would be doing “a good deed” that brings him “closer to Allah,” and that if he died in the process, he would be considered a martyr. He further said that this also applies to anyone who assassinates other “criminal leaders,” because, he explained, this is a tenet of Islam.
Mahmoud Awad is the Regional Delegate – Ile de France UOIF
He is also the president of the Education & Knowledge High School located in Vitry-sur-Seine (Val-de-Marne) and established in 2008.
In his opinion, the public sector “teaches” while the private sector “educates”.
“We believe that teaching does not suffice, if not accompanied by proper education. Teaching based only on materialism does not reflect our vision for an education based on an Islamic vision of life. ” (Zaman)
In a fiery speech delivered at the most influential Sunni seminary in the world on Thursday, January 1, 2015, Egyptian President Abdul-Fattah al-Sisi called on clerics to take action against all Islamic scripts and thoughts that have gone awry and made the world see the Sunnism as a source of murder and havoc.
AbulElah Shyea received the Alkarama Human Rights Award on 10 December 2013.
Based in Geneva, Al Karama Foundation is as a human rights organization.
Al Karama handed him the award for revealing that US drones had made civilian casualties. And as a matter of fact, the Yemeni journalist denounced the 17 December 2009 attack on the village of Al-Ma’jalah, which resulted in 55 civilian casualties, including 14 women and 21 children. Since that time, he is considered as a specialist of American blunders.
On his website, AbulElah Shyea reveals that he was imprisoned between 2010 and 2013 “on the orders of President Obama.” Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki (an American of Yemeni origin) who was killed by a US drone in 2011 had supported Al Shaey during his imprisonment.
A few days before receiving the award, AbulElah Shyea posted a tweet on Fort Hood and Boston attacks and was delighted at terrorists’ age.
In the same vein, he declared on his Facebook page that “Jewish gangs control America.”
Le Temps newspaper attempted to determine whether it was appropriate to give the Alkarama Human Rights Award to AbulElah Shyea.
Mourad Dhina, Foundation spokesperson, declared the following:
“We condemn Shyea remarks. However, he is in a very fragile psychological situation. We wondered whether we should withdraw the award, but we felt that his battle against drones was more important than his tweets.”
This post is also available in Français .
Azzedine Gaci is a member of the UOIF-BE, in charge of inter-religious dialogue.
He came to France in 1986 to finish his studies. He is a teacher and researcher at the Ecole Supérieure de Chimie-Physique-Electronique in Lyon.
He is also the rector of the Othmane mosque in Villeurbanne, and has always used inter-religious dialogue as a means to ease tensions. He long declared to be independent, until he was appointed to the UOIF office.
Azzedine Gaci was one of the religious leaders who called for demonstrations during the Manif pour tous (a French anti-gay marriage protest).
“It is important to show that we share other parties’ concerns on a text that will dismantle the family structure and have consequences on the balance of society” (Blog of Stéphanie Le Bars)
During the January 2015 attacks, he insists that all people, whether believers or non-believers, must be present at the January 11 demonstration. For Azzedine Gaci, these attacks “call into question social peace”.
This post is also available in Français.
ikhwaninfowhoswhoen.data.blog 