Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description:

Notify me of new HIR pieces!

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: HIR mailing list


Courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama


Historical and Investigative Research - 9 May 2011
by Francisco Gil-White
Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\iraniraq\button1E.jpg


The US government has been pushing hard to make the Muslim Brotherhood a legitimate political force in the new Egypt. Why? Is it because the US government does not understand that the Muslim Brotherhood preaches the extermination of infidels and the destruction of Israel?



   Short preface

   The interpretation of diplomatic language

   What does the Muslim Brotherhood preach?

   Is President Barack Hussein Obama misinformed about Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood?

   The future, coming soon


Short preface

The Muslim Brotherhood organization is now all over the Muslim world. It controls vast amounts of resources and has an enormous membership. It is highly disciplined. And tremendously influential. As the Economist explains: “The Muslim Brotherhood…, founded in Egypt in 1928, has been an important incubator of Islamist movements, and has survived decades of repression.” In the recent political upheaval “its highly disciplined youth movement proved crucial to the protests that overthrew [former Egyptian president] Mr [Hosni] Mubarak.”[1]

What is the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the US ruling elite? And what does this relationship hold for the future? This article will seek to explore these questions.

The interpretation of diplomatic language

Historian Bernadotte Schmitt once wrote: “Diplomatic records… never tell the whole story of a diplomatic transaction, as Bismarck long ago avowed, for the motives of the negotiators are seldom declared.”[2]  But if statesmen and their diplomats, even in their one-on-one dealings, do not reveal what their real intentions are, then their public declarations—speeches, interviews, press briefings, etc.—will be even less transparent. Whoever says, “President Obama’s intention is X because he declared his intention to be X” is not doing political science but propaganda. If we wish to understand Obama’s—or, more precisely, the US ruling elite’s—intentions vis-à-vis the Muslim Brotherhood, we must interpret their public statements. In this regard, certain statements from the month of February 2011 are especially useful. Interpretation (naturally) requires context: the context of US actions. We shall provide it.

Let us begin with Phillip Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. At a February 2nd press briefing reporters asked him about the US position on the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Quote from Press Briefing begins here]

MR. CROWLEY: [...] If any figure wants to play a role in this [new political] process [in Egypt], they can come forward. If any -- if any group --

Q: They could? Does that include the Muslim Brotherhood?

MR. CROWLEY: If any group wants to come forward and play a role in a democratic process, a peaceful process, that is their right as Egyptians. It's not for us, the United States, to dictate this.[3]

[Quote from Press Briefing ends here]

Let us unpack this.

Consider the words: “It’s not for us, the United States, to dictate…” Anybody who has followed US foreign policy over the years will see the problem. When the US ruling elite does not like something, it makes its wishes known, and then, if necessary, forces the outcome. It dictates. Unhappy with a particular regime, it may bomb (Yugoslavia), invade (Panama, Iraq), or else arrange a coup d’état (Guatemala, Iran). Or it may do lots of other things. In the 1947 National Security Act, the US Congress gave US Intelligence very broad authority to influence the media and political processes of other countries with so-called “covert actions.”[4]

Perhaps more to the point, just a few days before the above quoted exchange, former US ambassador to Egypt, Frank G. Wisner, explained the following on TV:

“We [the US ruling elite] have known that the end of the Mubarak period would be with us in some reasonable time frame. We've been thinking in these terms. …the situation is not a surprise.”[5]

But if the US government was already expecting (planning?) a transition to a post-Mubarak Egypt, who was the favorite to replace Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak?

Rewind back to June 2009. Just a few months after installing himself in the White House as the new president of the United States, Barack Obama made a trip to Egypt, to give a speech, to send a message to Muslims. This is very deliberate stuff. Dramatic stuff. (As dramatic and deliberate, perhaps, as Obama giving his first interview as president, just 6 days after assuming office, to Al Arabiya Television.) But if Obama was there to address Muslims in general, was he speaking to (winking at?) anyone in particular? According to a number of reports in the Middle Eastern media, Obama insisted that top representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood be allowed to attend his speech.[6]

All by itself, this invitation to the Muslim Brotherhood is pregnant with meaning. Egypt is a US client-state, whose military has been built up, tremendously, with US largesse. And the client military government, led at the time by Hosni Mubarak, had been trying to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power. So the Muslim Brotherhood representatives, in the context of the dramatic invitation by the president of the World Superpower (Egypt’s Big Boss), were bound to pay close attention to the content of Obama’s speech. And producing such careful attention to content, naturally, was the reason for inviting them. This is how diplomatic language works.

And what did Obama say to the leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission is to make Islam the Law of State in Egypt?

Obama passionately praised the virtues of Islam, and showed that he knows the Quran intimately, for he quoted extensively from it without even glancing at his notes. And he produced the most remarkable interpretation of his job: “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States,” he said pointedly, “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”[7]  As we said, public statements by government officials are usually mired in deceit, subterfuge, and indirectness, but in this case we have relatively clear diplomatic language. Unless the Muslim Brotherhood leaders had fallen into a deep coma they were bound to hear Obama loud and clear: Your turn is up. Get ready.

Now fast forward a year and a half later (in political time, a few seconds) to the 2011 protests. Frank Wisner was sent to Egypt to convey to Mubarak the desires of the US government, which Phillip Crowley, speaking for the State Department, explained in a January 31 briefing: “President Mubarak pledged a -- you know, to undertake political and economic reform. And, as we've said ever since, we want to see, you know, concrete actions…”[8] The next day Christiane Amanpour explained on ABC News what was going on: “President Obama dispatched Frank Wisner, a former ambassador to Egypt, to deliver a message directly to Mubarak suggesting he not seek re-election.”[9] 

This is how the Empire dictates the outcome to its client state.

But pressing the Egyptian military government to 1) remove Mubarak, and 2) rush to hold elections, as everybody understands, will give the upper hand to the Muslim Brotherhood. So, not surprisingly, the next day (February 2), Phillip Crowley was asked by reporters to state the US position on whether the Muslim Brotherhood should play a role in Egyptian politics. To which he replied (as we saw): “If any group wants to come forward and play a role in a democratic process, a peaceful process, that is their right as Egyptians. It's not for us, the United States, to dictate this.”

So what does this mean, in context? It means this:

The US ruling elite WOULD LIKE (very much) for the Muslim Brotherhood to play an active role in Egyptian politics.

Not surprisingly, there were reports that Frank Wisner had met with the Muslim Brotherhood during his trip to Egypt. Reporters asked Crowley about this at the same press briefing, and he denied it (he seemed a bit nervous).[10]

On February 14th Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Al Arabiya Television. This is “an Arabic-language television news channel… partly owned by the Saudi broadcaster Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC).”[11]  So Clinton was speaking here directly to the Saudi-style salafists/wahabbists allied with the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Excerpt from interview begins here]

MR. MELHEM: […] Is the [Muslim] Brotherhood welcome at the table as President Obama hinted last week?

SEC. CLINTON: That is up to the Egyptian people. […][12]

[Excerpt from interview ends here]

Translation: Yes, you understood President Obama’s hint perfectly. 

On February 23rd, Clinton gave an interview to, an Egyptian website owned, through LINKdotNET, by Orascom Telecom Holding, an Egyptian multinational.[13]  She was speaking directly to Egyptians.

[Excerpt from interview begins here]

MR. GHANIM: […] What would be the reaction of the United States if Muslim Brotherhood gained power in Egypt through a true democratic election?

SEC. CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that it's up to the Egyptian people… any party that is committed to nonviolence, committed to democracy, committed to the rights of all Egyptians, whoever they are, should have the opportunity to compete for Egyptian votes. […] [14]

[Excerpt from interview ends here]

Translation: We will all pretend that the Muslim Brotherhood is committed to nonviolence and democracy. Muslim Brotherhood: no problem.

Mubarak resigned under US pressure. Then the US pushed for a lightning quick timetable for a referendum on a new Constitution followed by new elections. According to the Economist, “the referendum marked a big step towards sending the army… back to barracks… [T]he speedy timetable laid out in the new deal may help the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, among others, to dish secular liberals and other fledgling parties in any early poll.” And this is the reason, as explained by the Economist, that Egyptian liberals voted against going for a new Constitution and early polls in the referendum (which they lost).[15]  (Let us not forget that the old Egyptian Constitution forbids the formation of religious political parties, something Egyptian liberals no doubt appreciated about it.)

Now, given that the US ruling elite appears to be pushing for a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt, we should seek to understand what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for.

What does the Muslim Brotherhood preach?


Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a widely known Somali author who, in order to escape Islam, took refuge in Holland, where she became a citizen, a political scientist, and a Member of Parliament. She now lives in the United States, after a Muslim stabbed her friend Theo van Gogh to death in the streets of Amsterdam. Pinned between the knife and her friend’s chest was a letter addressed to Hirsi Ali: you are next. The reason for the murder was that van Gogh had made a short film with Hirsi Ali about Islam and its oppression of women.

Hirsi Ali knows the Muslim Brotherhood well. In her autobiography, titled Infidel, she explains the role of this organization in Kenya, where she lived for a number of years as a refugee from the Somali civil wars. In her Nairobi neighborhood, the local Muslim Brotherhood preacher was one Boqol Sawm, whose strategy was to recruit the women first, and then use the women to shame their husbands into becoming good Muslims. If they wanted their wives to obey them again (for wives need not obey husbands who do not accept true Islam), they would have to follow the Brotherhood.[16]  It was a powerful inducement. “Boqol Sawm,” explains Hirsi Ali,

shouted that the men who rejected their wives’ call to Islam would burn. The rich who spent their money on earthly things would burn. The Muslims who abandoned their fellow Muslims—the Palestinians—were not true Muslims, and they would burn, too. Islam was under threat and its enemies—the Jews and the Americans—would burn forever. Those Muslim families who sent their children to universities in the United States, Britain, and other lands of the infidels would burn. Life on earth is temporary, Boqol Sawm yelled; it was meant by Allah to test people. The hypocrites who were too weak to resist the worldly temptations would burn. If you did not break off your friendships with non-Muslims, you would burn.”[17]

Hirsi Ali tells how one day she went with her Islamic class, led by one Sister Aziza, to a new Muslim Brotherhood mosque built in a poor neighborhood with the money of a Saudi millionaire. The Muslim Brotherhood was converting many poor Kenyans to Islam with the hook of social assistance (highly effective). A recently converted Swahili woman began breastfeeding her child the way she used to prior to her conversion, with her breast in the open.

“All the girls from Sister Aziza’s class shrieked in unison, and we transported this young woman to a hall in the women’s section. An older woman of Swahili origin [another convert to Islam], covered from head to toe in black, started to instruct her in the Islamic way of breast-feeding. First you say Bismillah before you put the nipple into the mouth. As the baby is feeding, beg Allah to protect your child from illness, earthly temptations, and evil ways of the Jews.”[18]

Is an image worth a thousand words? Perhaps a well-chosen anecdote is worth a thousand explanations: It is correct for a Muslim child to begin life suckling Jew-hatred from mama’s teat.

Hirsi Ali explains further:

“[The Muslim Brotherhood] taught that, as Muslims, we should oppose the West. Our goal was a global Islamic government, for everyone. How would we fight? Some said the most important goal was preaching: to spread Islam among non-Muslims and to awaken passive Muslims to the call of the true, pure belief. Several young men left the group to go to Egypt, to become members of the original Muslim Brotherhood there. Others received scholarships from various Saudi-funded groups to go to Quran schools in Medina, in Saudi Arabia.”[19]

There was also much talk of jihad,

a word that may have multiple meanings. It may mean that the faith needs financial support, or that an effort should be made to convert new believers. Or it may mean violence; violent jihad is a historical constant in Islam.”[20]

Hirsi Ali never liked this kind of talk very much. She was attracted to the West: “For me Britain and America were the countries in my books were there was decency and individual choice. The West to me meant all those ideas…”[21]  She was hoping that Boqol Sawm was exaggerating. She was hoping that he was distorting the true content of the Quran, for she did not wish her religion to preach death to all those will not convert. So she got the book. She could not read Arabic, so “I bought my own English edition of the Quran and I read it so I could understand it better. But I found that everything Boqol Sawm had said was in there. Women should obey their husbands. Women were worth half a man. Infidels should be killed.[22]

By the time the 9/11 attacks happened Hirsi Ali was living in Holland. There is, of course, a controversy about the authorship of those attacks. But that is not the point here. The point is how they were perceived in the Muslim world, where it was assumed by many that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind, and where the same people accepted that he had done it in the name of Islam. Dutch TV cameras showed Muslim kids in Holland jubilating in the streets over the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. Even so, Hirsi Ali’s Dutch friends—no doubt influenced by the constant apologies for Islam that routinely flood the Western media—didn’t want to believe that this had anything to do with ‘real’ Islam, a supposedly peaceful religion. Talking to a friend on her way to the office the next day, Hirsi Ali began what would become her lifelong duty: to inform Westerners about what Islam preaches, and the danger that her former religion poses to liberty and sanity everywhere. “I couldn’t help myself. Just before we reached the office, I blurted out, ‘But it is about Islam. This is based in belief. This is Islam.’ …I walked into the office thinking, ‘I have to wake these people up.’ ” That’s what Hirsi Ali has been trying to do ever since: wake up Westerners. As she explains about the violence of 9/11,

“This was not just Islam, this was the core of Islam… There were tens of thousands of people, in Africa, the Middle East—even in Holland—who thought this way. Every devout Muslim who aspired to practice genuine Islam—the Muslim Brotherhood Islam, the Islam of the Medina Quran schools—even if they didn’t actively support the attacks, they must at least have approved of them.”[23]

Some of my readers may be wondering, ‘But then why is Obama supporting a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt? Could it be that he doesn’t understand what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for?’

Is President Barack Hussein Obama misinformed about Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Lots of people seem to think that objectionable US foreign policy should be explained on the basis of the supposed ignorance or thick-headedness of US leaders. But if US policy appears to contradict what you believe reasonable, there is an obvious alternative to proposing that US leaders are misinformed madmen. The alternative says that US leaders have different values than your own, but they lie in public about their real intentions (so that you will think they do share your values). This alternative hypothesis has the advantage of being reasonable. It does not force us to say that the most powerful people in the world—in charge of a vast and sophisticated information-gathering system—are stupider, crazier, or less well-informed than the average blogger.

The point is perfectly general, but in the case of Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood we can give a rather sharp demonstration.

Some have argued that Obama is in reality a closet Muslim, and they point to the words “My Muslim faith,” which did indeed slide inadvertently from his lips during an ABC News television interview.[24]  Others consider the error completely innocent: Obama meant to say “My alleged Muslim faith” and merely failed to pronounce the word “alleged.” But whatever the facts of Obama’s inner religious convictions, the facts of his upbringing and family background are not in dispute. President Obama spent his childhood in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, and for this reason alone one could expect him to be well informed about Islam. If that were not enough, Obama is descended, on his father’s side, from Muslims.[25]  As mentioned earlier, when he insisted that representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood be present at a speech he gave in Egypt in 2009, he went out of his way to praise Islam, repeatedly, and demonstrated that he can quote from the Quran ex tempore. So Obama is not misinformed about Islam. And since he knows the Quran, he knows, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali also does, that the book calls for the slaughter of infidels.

But, in particular, Obama cannot be misinformed about the Muslim Brotherhood. For you see, his own Muslim family is from Nyang'oma Kogelo, in the extreme Western end of Kenya.

Islam is still a minority religion in Kenya (about 10%), and Muslims are mostly on the coast, in the East. In the West, the first Muslim missionaries did not arrive until the very late 19th c. As a consequence, Muslim converts in this area—the area from which Obama’s family hails—are mostly the consequence of Muslim Brotherhood proselytizing, which became especially intense from the 1970s onward. So Obama’s Muslim family, and in particular his father (whom Obama himself explains was “raised a Muslim” [25a]) must be quite familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood message that Ayaan Hirsi Ali (above) witnessed in Kenya: death to all infidels and, especially, death to the Jews.

Also, Obama has to know that the terrorist organization Hamas, in control of the Gaza strip, which has a border with Egypt, and pledged to destroy the Jewish state, is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? Because Hamas makes no secret of this, and the information is published in Article 2 of the Hamas Charter, which the Avalon Project at Yale University has made public on the internet:

“ARTICLE 2: The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgment, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.”[26]

Here then are the facts of US foreign policy. After sending billions upon billions of dollars in US armament to the Egyptian military since 1974, Obama—or, more precisely, the US ruling elite—now wants the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of all that armament. This, Obama—or, more precisely, the US ruling elite—is doing with a perfect understanding of what the Muslim Brotherhood is and what it intends to do: destroy Israel.

Does this agree with the history of US foreign policy? Perfectly. It has nothing to do with Obama per se but with the longstanding goals of the US ruling elite.[27]

The future, coming soon

Other Muslim countries besides Egypt have been experiencing protests and revolts of late. In every case, it is the Muslim Brotherhood taking the lead, and the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. In Tunisia, the main opposition to the deposed president was the Islamist movement Enahda, now legalized as a party. Enahda traces its roots to the Muslim Brotherhood.[28]  In Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood “is the best-run opposition movement.”[29]  And in Syria everything indicates that the Muslim Brotherhood is the main force behind the recent unrest.[30]

The US government is lending support to all of these revolts. It appears, therefore, that the Brotherhood is poised to gain lots of power in the Muslim world, in the short term. No surprise, then, that the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood is expressing such satisfaction with the course of developments.[31]


Is this article useful? Help us do more with a donation .
Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .


The future, sooner than you think, will show us a Muslim world universally run by the Islamist offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood, where a child learns to hate and fear Jews, literally, at his mother’s teat. Where the goal of everything is a Universal World Government of Islam. Where killing the remaining obstacles—the infidels who will not convert—is a glorious undertaking, and to die in the process ensures a ticket to Heaven.

All of this, courtesy of US leaders (who are apparently in a great hurry).

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description:

Footnotes and further reading

[1] A golden opportunity?; Islam and the Arab revolutions; The Economist, April 2, 2011, FRONT BRIEFING, 2162 words.

[2] Schmitt, B. E. (1936). Review: American Neutrality, 1914-1917. The Journal of Modern History, 8(2), 200-211. (p.203)


[4] “Did the National Security Act of 1947 destroy freedom of the press?: The red pill...”; Historical and Investigative Research; 3 Jan 2006; by by Francisco Gil-White

[5] January 28 CNN interview with Frank Wisner:

[Excerpt from CNN transcript]

MORGAN: Frank, let me start with you. It seems everyone is trying to make out this is a huge surprise and yet resentment towards Mubarak has been building for years. President Obama warned him many times, he must do something about this. So, it's not much of a surprise, is it really?

FRANK WISNER, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO EGYPT: Well, I think the slow developing situation, even the incidents that have marked this year, the explosion at promise in Alexandria, the beating and killing of a businessman earlier, all these were events that signaled that on top of the disconnect, trouble was brewing. But I don't think you can ever predict exactly when the crisis will erupt. And, if you will, this crisis with its -- the predicate in Tunisia, has come on very quickly. I don't think anyone, and certainly not the Egyptian government, is completely taken by surprise. We have known that the end of the Mubarak period would be with us in some reasonable time frame. We've been thinking in these terms.

So maybe the day, but the situation is not a surprise.

[Excerpt from CNN transcript]

SOURCE: “Crisis in Egypt”; CNN, January 28, 2011 Friday, NEWS; International, 6757 words, Piers Morgan, Ben Wedeman, Nic Robertson, Wolf Blitzer, John King, Amir Ahmed, Fran Townsend, Richard Grenell, Robin Wright, Mohammed Jamjoom, Mark Coatney, Sarah Sirgany

[6] “…various Middle Eastern news sources report that the administration insisted that at least 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's chief opposition party, be allowed to attend his speech in Cairo on Thursday.”

SOURCE: "Brotherhood" Invited To Obama Speech By U.S.”; The Atlantic; Jun 3 2009; By Marc Ambinder.

[7] President Obama’s Egypt Speech, 4 June 2009.

To read the transcript:


[9] “CRISIS IN EGYPT; ANGRY BURST”; ABC News Transcript, February 1, 2011 Tuesday, 617 words


[Excerpt begins here]

Q: Can you talk about the Muslim Brotherhood? Can you talk about the Muslim Brotherhood and whether there have been any contacts with them, and whether you think that the Muslim Brotherhood should be part of any political process? You say you're not going to anoint anybody, but what if a figure from Muslim Brotherhood emerges as the primary candidate to lead the country?

MR. CROWLEY: All right, again --

Q: Specifically on the Muslim Brotherhood.

MR. CROWLEY: We have not met with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Q: Have you spoken with -- (off mic)?

(Cross talk.)

Q: Okay, but -- no, but what if -- should they be part of the political process?

MR. CROWLEY: We have had no contact with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Q: But should they be part of a political process? They obviously have a following in the country.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, that is up to them. They are -- they are a fact of life in Egypt.

They are highly organized. And if they choose, and if they choose to participate and respect the democratic process, that is a -- those are decisions to be made, you know, inside Egypt.

You know, the army obviously will play a role in this transition. There are -- there are a broad variety of political figures, political groups, political actors that can participate if they choose. These are decisions to be made inside Egypt.

Q: Have you met with --

Q: P.J.

Q: Have you asked to meet the Muslim Brotherhood?


Q: Why not?

Q: (Off mic) -- that the army -- that the --

Q: I mean, you've met with other opposition members. Who -- can you say who've you met with? Ayman Nour. You've met with -- can you give a --

MR. CROWLEY: I don't -- I don't have a list here. We are doing an aggressive, active outreach to a broad range of figures. We have always done that. We're going to continue to do that. We've been very active in the last few days.

I can't detail all the people we have and have not. You asked a specific question. We have not had contact with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Q: Why don't you meet with the Muslim Brotherhood? What's the reason not to meet with them?

MR. CROWLEY: I'm -- you know, we will meet with figures. If we -- if we meet with anyone on those lines, we'll let you know.

Q: Did you give conditions before you meet the people?

Q: P.J., are you saying that the reports about the meeting with -- that Ambassador Wisner has had with the Muslim Brotherhood representatives if false?

MR. CROWLEY: I was in touch with Ambassador Wisner on the airplane as he was coming back. He had two meetings, one with President Mubarak and one with Vice President Suleiman.

Q: Why is --

Q: So is the report false or is it not false?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I -- I'm just telling you he had two meetings. So if you're -- if you're saying, did Mr. Wisner meet with the Muslim Brotherhood, the answer is no.

[Excerpt ends here]

[11] “Al Arabiya” | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[Consulted Sunday, May 08, 2011]


[13] Wikipedia articles consulted Sunday, May 08, 2011.


[15] Egypt and Democracy: Yes they can; The Economist; March 26th, 2011; pp.55-56

[16] The Muslim Brotherhood preachers among the Somali exiles in Nairobi, Hirsi Ali explains, first targeted the women. The strategy was to get women to shame the men into being more orthodox Muslims. She focuses on one Boqol Sawm, a preacher she knew well because he preached in her Nairobi neighborhood of Eastleigh.

“As Boqol Sawm’s following grew, his sermons caused a lot of quarrels between spouses. At first, the Somali fathers and husbands were amused and teased their wives, predicting that after a week the silly, bored women would find some other pastime. After a while, however, irritations arose. The living room, usually well furnished, is the domain of the man. Somali men bring their male friends home and sit with them in the living room having men-talk (honor, money, politics, and whether to take a second or third wife) as they drink scented sweet tea and chew qat. The evenings and Friday afternoons are their preferred times, and Boqol Sawm chose to give his lectures especially at those times.

When Boqol Sawm was visiting a house, the men were relegated to the women’s quarters: the kitchen, backyard, and, in some of the bigger houses, the smaller and uglier living rooms usually occupied by the women. And after their wives converted to the True Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood believers, they began saying that chewing qat, smoking, and skipping prayers were forbidden. They actually sent their husbands off, calling them unbelievers. When the men shouted about disobedience, the women replied that in the hierarchy of submission [‘Islam’ literally means ‘submission’ — HIR], we must follow Allah even before husband and father: Allah and the Prophet decreed that wives should obey only husbands who themselves obey Allah.” (p. 105)

In this manner men acquired a powerful incentive to become more orthodox Muslims: to regain control of their households.

“The Muslim Brotherhood believed that there was a pure, original Islam to which we all should return. Traditional ways of practicing Islam had become corrupted, diluted with ancient beliefs that should no longer have currency. The movement was founded in the 1920s in Egypt as an Islamic revivalist movement, then caught on and spread—slowly at first, but much faster in the 1970s, as waves of funding flooded in from the suddenly massively rich Saudis. By 1987 the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideas had reached the Somali housewives of Eastleigh in the gaunt and angry shape of Boqol Sawm.

Within months the first divorces were occurring, and secular Somali men were threatening Boqol Sawm for breaking up their families. Boqol Sawm was chased away by angry husbands from the living room sessions and from the Somali mosques, but copies of his tapes continued to spread even as he was in hiding.

Boqol Sawm wasn’t the only preacher who had come to our neighborhood to guide the lost back to Allah’s Straight Path after a stint in Medina or Cairo. More and more young men of the Muslim Brotherhood, dressed in ankle-length white robes and red-and-white checked shawls, were striding through the streets. People who converted to their cause started to collect money from family; some women gave their dowries, and all kinds of donations came in. By 1987 the first Muslim Brotherhood mosque was built in Eastleigh, and Boqol Sawm came out of hiding to preach there every Friday, screaming at the top of his lungs through the loudspeakers behind the white minaret topped with a green crescent and a single star.

Boqol Sawm shouted that the men who rejected their wives’ call to Islam would burn…” (pp.105-07)

SOURCE: Hirsi Ali, A. (2007). Infidel. New York: Simon & Shuster.

[17] Hirsi Ali, A. (2007). Infidel. New York: Simon & Shuster. (pp.105-07)

[18] Infidel, op. cit. (p.107)

[19] Infidel, op. cit. (p.109)

[20] Infidel, op. cit. (p.109)

[21] Infidel, op. cit. (p.109)

[22] Infidel, op. cit. (p.104)

[23] Infidel, op. cit. (pp.268-70)




[25] PERSONAL HISTORY; Newsday (New York), November 9, 2008 Sunday, NEWS; Pg. W04, 500 words.

[25a]  Taken from, “Barack Obama: My Spiritual Journey”, his autobiography, excerpts of which were published in Time Magazine (Monday, Oct. 16, 2006).,9171,1546579-1,00.html

[26] Hamas Charter, published by the Avalon Project, Yale University

If you would like to see a PDF of the original Arabic document, with its English translation, see:

[27] This is a good place to start:

“PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored”; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White

[28] The recent uprisings in the Muslim world began in Tunisia, where regime change has already been accomplished. In the wake of the revolt that brought this about, the Tunisian Islamist movement Ennahda has been legalized. About this, Al Jazeera writes: “The movement was founded in 1981 by Rachid Ghannouchi and intellectuals inspired by the influential Muslim Brotherhood born in Egypt.” How big is Tunisian Islamism? “Experts say it is hard to gauge the strength of Islamism as a political force in Tunisia as it has been banned for decades, but Islamists were its most powerful opposition force before the persecution began.” After the deposed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali took power, Ennahda was briefly tolerated but denied registration as a party. “Despite that, an Islamist-backed coalition won 17 per cent of the vote in 1989 elections, even though the vote was heavily falsified.”(a) So a movement tracing its genesis to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood appears to have been the strongest opposition force to the deposed president. The revolt was therefore probably staged, in the main, by this group, which helps explain why it has now been legalized, and also why, as the Economist explains, the post-revolutionary government in Tunisia has freed “thousands of Islamist political prisoners.”(b)


(a) Tunisia allows Islamist group to form political party; BBC Monitoring Middle East - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, March 1, 2011 Tuesday, 295 words; Text of report in English by Qatari government-funded website on 1 March ["Tunisia's Islamists to form party" - Al Jazeera net headline]

(b) A golden opportunity?; Islam and the Arab revolutions; The Economist, April 2, 2011, FRONT BRIEFING, 2162 words

[29] About the people fighting Qaddafi, the Economist  recently writes: “The opposition’s interim national council contains secular liberals, Islamists, Muslim Brothers, tribal figures and recent defectors from the camp of Colonel Qaddafi.”  The above appears to suggest a truly plural coalition (but notice that Islamists are listed twice: “Islamists, Muslim Brothers”). The question is: How much of that opposition consists of Muslim Brothers? In another piece, the Economist explains: “The Muslim Brotherhood, which has branches all over the region, is the best-run opposition movement in Libya and Egypt.” It appears, then, that in Libya too the rebels are mostly Muslim Brothers.

SOURCE: Islam and the Arab revolutions; The Economist, April 2, 2011, LEADER, 1020 words

[30] The Times of London explains that Syrian president Hafez al-Assad “dealt with a Muslim Brotherhood uprising in the town of Hama in 1982, when thousands were killed.” (a) The above is a reference to the Hama massacre, which according to a Christian Science Monitor article may have involved as many as 22,000 people killed. So back in 1982 the Muslim Brotherhood could already stage in Syria an uprising so large that to put it down Hafez al-Assad had to kill thousands. In fact, according to a scholar interviewed by the Monitor, this was an attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood to activate its membership simultaneously in various cities and depose the ruling Ba’ath party.(b) No such attempt could even be imagined unless the organization was already quite large in Syria. Certainly the bloody repression dealt a blow to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ability to take power by force, but it does not appear to have dented its appeal. In 2005, the New York Times wrote: “the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood [is] the most popular organization among Syria's majority Sunnis.”(c) Later that same year, the New York Times wrote that “an unusually diverse collection of politicians and activists” was calling for ‘democracy’ in Syria, and the motley group included “the London-based Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which has been banned in Syria for more than two decades but is believed to enjoy continuing popular support.”(d) So it would appear that the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the recent agitation in Syria as well.


(a) Syrians unite under fire from Assad clan's 'ghost' militia; The Sunday Times (London), April 3, 2011 Sunday, NEWS; Pg. 24, 593 words, Hugh Macleod ; Uzi Mahnaimi  

(b) Memory of 1982 massacre casts a pall over Hama, Syria, as town rebuilds; Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), March 27, 1984, Tuesday, International; Pg. 7, 698 words, By Conyers A. Moye, Special to The Christian Science Monitor

(c) U.N. IS EXPECTED TO PASS MEASURE PRESSURING SYRIA; The New York Times, October 31, 2005 Monday, Section A; Column 6; Foreign Desk; Pg. 1, 1264 words, By WARREN HOGE and STEVEN R. WEISMAN; Warren Hoge reported from the United Nations for this article, and Steven R. Weisman from Washington. Michael Slackman contributed reporting from Damascus.

(d) “The New York Times”; October 20, 2005 Thursday; Late Edition – Final; “Syria's Opposition Unites Behind a Call for Democratic Changes”; BYLINE: By KATHERINE ZOEPF; SECTION: Section A; Column 1; Foreign Desk; Pg. 15; LENGTH: 574 words; DATELINE: DAMASCUS, Syria, Oct. 19

[31] In a recent interview aired on Al Arabiyah Television, Sadr-al-Din al-Bayanuni, former controller general of the Muslim Brotherhood, celebrated that


“...all the factors and reasons which led to an uprising and a revolution in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya do exist in Syria. …These youth moved after having long waited for this regime and for the opposition, which could not achieve their demands. They rebelled and staged purely national demonstrations, in which all sectors of the Syrian people participated. They have proven their patriotism, peacefulness, and non-violent approach.”


Pay no attention to the words “peacefulness and non-violence.”


SOURCE: Speech by Syrian president "disappointed many" - Muslim Brotherhood official; BBC Monitoring Middle East - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, April 2, 2011 Saturday, 2053 words



















































































































































































Notify me of new HIR pieces!

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: HIR mailing list