The Muslim Brotherhood, Genocide, and Obama

The Muslim Brotherhood has just issued an ultimatum to the Israeli ambassador in Egypt, telling him to "leave Egypt or die."  Brotherhood activists have rallied together, emboldened by their rise to prevalence in the political vacuum created by Mubarak's resignation, to show the world that "[r]evolution is stronger than the Zionist attackers," and they go on to say that "the entire Egyptian people are Hamas."

Interestingly enough, this statement might remind the reader of the powerful words of John F. Kennedy, when he stood against the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1963, where he related: "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin.  And therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, "Ich bin ein Berliner.""

The Muslim Brotherhood's new message is very similar: all Islamic men in Egypt, whoever they may be, should stand and be counted as members of Hamas.  Whether one sees this message as analogous in the sense of ideology, however, would likely be a matter of perspective.

There are the Western apologists for Hamas, who fight against all logic and evidence to portray the group as a viable representative in the Palestinian bid for statehood.  People of this mindset generally believe Palestinians to be under the thumb of Zionist oppression, much like the West Berliners who lived in exclaves within East Germany at the time of Kennedy's speech.  To them, the Muslim Brotherhood shares Kennedy's message of freedom from oppression.

But here's the problem.  Though these apologists willingly embrace the concept of freedom and perhaps cannot imagine how anyone could not do so, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas stand for anything but "freedom."  Carrying forth "the torch of liberty" may have been a defining factor in JFK's ideology, but to the Brotherhood and Hamas, all is secondary to carrying forth Allah's will, which, according to the Quran, is for all Muslim men to fight unbelievers until religion is "only for Allah" (Surah 2:193).

Freedom does not hold the same value in fundamental Islamic practice as it does for the Western world that has really come to fancy the concept in the last five centuries.  Submission, the very translation of Islam, is far superior to "freedom" for fundamentalist Muslims like those that make up the Brotherhood.

The aim of the Muslim Brotherhood, as it is with other anti-Zionist Muslims throughout the world, is to have the followers of Islam hold dominion over the holy land that Israel now occupies, to be governed by Islamic law.  To them, having the Jewish "apes" and "pigs" govern with the notion of "freedom" and allowing equal worship at holy sites in Jerusalem is a slap in the face to the prophet who has promised the right to govern that region to Muslims.  Therefore, they would much rather see Islamic clerics and mullahs allowing preferential rights to be granted for Muslims, while non-Muslims are subjugated, as Allah intended (Surah 9:29).

Some might read this criticism and find it offensive.  They might suggest that these statements about these influential Islamic groups are too broad.  Sure, some members of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood want to see Israel destroyed by any means necessary, they might say.  In fact, Hamas' foundational charter says that very thing in plain language.  And sure, maybe the Muslim Brotherhood has been calling to institute the Sharia practices of executing gays and stoning adulterers.  But they would argue that this doesn't mean that all members of these groups are for Islamic hegemony and the persecution of Jews. 

But the truth is, what I've written to this point isn't the half of it.  What the Muslim Brotherhood really wants is not just the ability to institute the social standards of Sharia and for Muslims to hold dominion over Israel.  Their ambition, which has been made frighteningly clear, is much, much darker.

The Muslim Brotherhood has held rallies recently that have seen the incineration of Israeli flags and the exhibition of Nazi symbols, complete with taunts to Israelis suggesting that "the gas chambers are ready."  It seems rather interesting for a group that has denied the Holocaust to clearly reference the means of its historical practices.  Apparently, the infidels' false history is not without its charms in the Brotherhood's eyes.

But think about the implications of what we see every day, but fail to recognize.  A burgeoning regime in Egypt, under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, is threatening the Israeli ambassador's life.  They have openly declared themselves to be not only in league with terrorists, but among the terrorists of Hamas, and therefore they have proclaimed themselves terrorists.  Mohamed ElBaradei, a possible Brotherhood candidate for Egyptian leadership, has stated that he would go to war with Israel if it attacks Gaza.  This means that any of Israel's numerous and necessary retaliatory strikes upon Gaza could result in war with Egypt, their historic enemy whose strength Israel has bolstered in efforts to achieve the longstanding peace that the Brotherhood would so readily break. 

But now, worst of all, the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for the annihilation of the Jews in Israel.  This is not the lunatic diplomat of Iran, who is generally viewed by the West as a tyrant and a madman.  This is the Muslim Brotherhood -- a group that our president and many other Westerners feel should play an important role in post-Mubarak Egypt.  Think about that.  Prior to Hitler's election to the chancellorship in 1933, not even he was so bold in bluntly calling for the mass genocide of the Jewish race.  One would have to think that if he had been, not even Neville Chamberlain could mistake his intentions as anything beyond the evils he would later inflict upon humanity.  But in the world today, the West knows well that the Muslim Brotherhood condones flagrant terrorism and the genocide of Jews, yet Western leaders encourage the democratic process that will hand them the mandate!

Not only have we not learned from history, but we have regressed to pacifism that must now be considered inexcusable given the template of history.  The result we will find of continued pacifism is unmistakable.  The only real question is whether or not the damage is reparable without increased hostility. 

William Sullivan blogs at

If you experience technical problems, please write to