A summary of the UK’s two-year-long probe into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood has finally seen daylight after a long delay in publication. The fact that the organisation isn’t being banned as extremist is perplexing given the prime minister’s admission that “parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism” and its views and activities are to be kept ‘under review.’
The paper notes that “people associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK have applauded suicide bombing by Hamas, in some cases against civilians” and “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”
Sir John Jenkins, one of the report’s co-authors, asserts the Brotherhood is “prepared to countenance violence—including, from time to time, terrorism—where gradualism is ineffective.”
So there you have it. The Brotherhood has a relationship with violent extremism, countenances terrorism, hails the killing of innocents, and is contrary to Britain’s national interests. Yes, apart from more intrusive monitoring, it is business as usual for its UK membership and its north London propaganda centre sited above a kebab shop.
What is the British government thinking? The Brotherhood hasn’t just countenanced violence; it has a long history of violence and is known to be the mother ship of all Takfiri ideology.
Apparently, Cameron doesn’t consider the Brotherhood a direct threat to the UK even though when the probe was initially announced, the head of the British branch Ebrahim Mounir warned that a ban would be interpreted by the following as making “doors open for all options.”
When asked whether those options would include violence, he responded with “any possibility . . .” adding, “you can’t predict what would happen with Muslims around the globe, especially the big Muslim organisations close to the Muslim Brotherhood and sharing its ideology.”
In reality, all Takfiri groups, including Al Qaida and Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) share that ideology conceived by one of the Brotherhood’s early leaders, Sayed Qutb, dubbed “The architect of worldwide jihad.”
Almost every Al Qaida leader, including Osama Bin Laden, was, at one time or another, a Brotherhood member. As author of ‘The Looming Tower’ Lawrence Wright acknowledges, Al Qaida wouldn’t have existed without Qutb’s influence.
While it’s true that until now the Brotherhood hasn’t targeted Britain, that’s only because it’s heavily invested there, is on to a good thing and doesn’t want to dirty its own doorstep. But if Cameron thought its head honchos would be appeased by his half-hearted measures stopping short of a ban, he was wrong. He may have adhered to the adage ‘let sleeping dogs lie,” but his scathing comments have stirred up a hornet’s nest.
Brotherhood lawyer Tayab Ali slams the report as “being unduly influenced by foreign powers hostile to the rise of democracy in the Middle East” and plans to challenge its negative criticism in the UK courts as unfairly damaging the reputation of the Middle East’s largest democratic organisation.
That in itself is laughable given the autocratic fashion in which Mohammad Mursi ruled Egypt, awarding himself more powers than even his deposed predecessor enjoyed. And when he, in turn, was brought down by tens of millions of Egyptians who went to the street (in the absence of an impeachment mechanism in his Islamist-dominated constitution), the result was Brotherhood bombs and bullets targeting security forces, civilians, churches as well as the homes and businesses of Coptic Christians. Egypt provided witness and video evidence of Brotherhood atrocities to the British committee, which appear to have been buried.
Moreover, the terrorist group Ansar Beit Al Maqdis, which has morphed into the Sinai Province now allied with Daesh, was a creation of Brotherhood leader Khairat Al Shater; these are the terrorists who’ve taken responsibility for downing the Russian plane last month.
At a time when terrorism is on the rise, which country on the planet wouldn’t ban a group that poses a threat to its national interests other than one that’s running scared of the consequences?
In any event, Cameron’s “we’re all right Jack” approach is a poke in the eye of some of his country’s closest allies that have labelled the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist for good reason.
To quote one of Cameron’s predecessors, Winston Churchill, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
He must be turning in his grave.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
Is Cameron scared of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Posted on December 23, 2015 by Linda S. Heard
A summary of the UK’s two-year-long probe into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood has finally seen daylight after a long delay in publication. The fact that the organisation isn’t being banned as extremist is perplexing given the prime minister’s admission that “parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism” and its views and activities are to be kept ‘under review.’
The paper notes that “people associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK have applauded suicide bombing by Hamas, in some cases against civilians” and “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”
Sir John Jenkins, one of the report’s co-authors, asserts the Brotherhood is “prepared to countenance violence—including, from time to time, terrorism—where gradualism is ineffective.”
So there you have it. The Brotherhood has a relationship with violent extremism, countenances terrorism, hails the killing of innocents, and is contrary to Britain’s national interests. Yes, apart from more intrusive monitoring, it is business as usual for its UK membership and its north London propaganda centre sited above a kebab shop.
What is the British government thinking? The Brotherhood hasn’t just countenanced violence; it has a long history of violence and is known to be the mother ship of all Takfiri ideology.
Apparently, Cameron doesn’t consider the Brotherhood a direct threat to the UK even though when the probe was initially announced, the head of the British branch Ebrahim Mounir warned that a ban would be interpreted by the following as making “doors open for all options.”
When asked whether those options would include violence, he responded with “any possibility . . .” adding, “you can’t predict what would happen with Muslims around the globe, especially the big Muslim organisations close to the Muslim Brotherhood and sharing its ideology.”
In reality, all Takfiri groups, including Al Qaida and Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) share that ideology conceived by one of the Brotherhood’s early leaders, Sayed Qutb, dubbed “The architect of worldwide jihad.”
Almost every Al Qaida leader, including Osama Bin Laden, was, at one time or another, a Brotherhood member. As author of ‘The Looming Tower’ Lawrence Wright acknowledges, Al Qaida wouldn’t have existed without Qutb’s influence.
While it’s true that until now the Brotherhood hasn’t targeted Britain, that’s only because it’s heavily invested there, is on to a good thing and doesn’t want to dirty its own doorstep. But if Cameron thought its head honchos would be appeased by his half-hearted measures stopping short of a ban, he was wrong. He may have adhered to the adage ‘let sleeping dogs lie,” but his scathing comments have stirred up a hornet’s nest.
Brotherhood lawyer Tayab Ali slams the report as “being unduly influenced by foreign powers hostile to the rise of democracy in the Middle East” and plans to challenge its negative criticism in the UK courts as unfairly damaging the reputation of the Middle East’s largest democratic organisation.
That in itself is laughable given the autocratic fashion in which Mohammad Mursi ruled Egypt, awarding himself more powers than even his deposed predecessor enjoyed. And when he, in turn, was brought down by tens of millions of Egyptians who went to the street (in the absence of an impeachment mechanism in his Islamist-dominated constitution), the result was Brotherhood bombs and bullets targeting security forces, civilians, churches as well as the homes and businesses of Coptic Christians. Egypt provided witness and video evidence of Brotherhood atrocities to the British committee, which appear to have been buried.
Moreover, the terrorist group Ansar Beit Al Maqdis, which has morphed into the Sinai Province now allied with Daesh, was a creation of Brotherhood leader Khairat Al Shater; these are the terrorists who’ve taken responsibility for downing the Russian plane last month.
At a time when terrorism is on the rise, which country on the planet wouldn’t ban a group that poses a threat to its national interests other than one that’s running scared of the consequences?
In any event, Cameron’s “we’re all right Jack” approach is a poke in the eye of some of his country’s closest allies that have labelled the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist for good reason.
To quote one of Cameron’s predecessors, Winston Churchill, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
He must be turning in his grave.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.