Luke 18/15-17: "They were also bringing their babies to him, that he might touch them. But when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.  Jesus summoned them, saying, “Allow the little children to come to me, and don’t hinder them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  Most certainly, I tell you, whoever doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a little child, he will in no way enter into it.”
 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources/August 28/13

US response to Syria chemical weapons attack 'not aimed at regime chang
Assad may hit back at Israel for US strike, trusting Obama to tie Israel’s hands against major
Syrian army source: US attack on Syria would justify retaliation against Israel
Washington warns Assad over 'undeniable' chemical weapons attack
Canada's PM, Harper, Obama agree that Syrian gas attack requires "firm response"
Canada Agrees, No Doubt Syria Launched Gas Attack
Italy says Syria has passed 'point of no-return' with chemical weapons
UK's Cameron: Any Syria action must be specific, avoid wider war
Lieberman: Hizbullah, Syria Not Interested in Conflict with Israel
Israel says will respond with force to any attack from Syria
Arab League blames Syria's Assad for chemical attack
Exclusive: Syria strike due in days, West tells opposition - sources
Russia warns US of 'catastrophic consequences' of Syria intervention
Syria Opposition Sees Intervention 'in Matter of Days'
Muallem Says Syria Has 'Surprise Defenses'
France's Hollande to Meet Head of Syrian National Coalition
Experts: Punitive U.S. Strike on Syria Not Enough
Experts Say Pro-Assad Response Depends on Aim of Strikes
Vatican: U.N. Caught in Crossfire over Syria
Britain Not 'Seeking' to Topple Assad
Suleiman, Saniora Fail to Agree on New Government
Report: Sheikh Confesses Prior Knowledge of Tripoli Blasts
Tripoli Spiritual Meeting Rejects Autonomous Security, Requests Protection of Places of Worship
Security Forces Release Sketch of Suspected Tripoli Bomber
Geagea Doesn't See 'Same Hand' in Tripoli, Dahieh Blasts: We Can't be with Hizbullah in Same Cabinet
Asir Warns Christians of Blasts, Blames Tripoli Bombings on Syria, Allies
Charbel Asks for Explosives Detection Equipment amid Call for Municipal Police Help
Mansour Calls Muallem, Says Lebanon Won't Remain Silent over Israeli Attack on Hizbullah
Berri Expresses Concern over Attempts to Divide Muslims
Aoun Urges Change in Methods of 'Combating Terrorism' in Lebanon
Gunmen Hold 2 Red Cross Staff in Sudan's Darfur
Army Clashes with Gunmen in Tripoli, Two Wounded  

Assad may hit back at Israel for US strike, trusting Obama to tie Israel’s hands against major reprisal

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 27, 2013/
There is little logic in the Netanyahu government’s public assurances that the Syrian ruler Bashar Assad would not risk a major showdown with Israel for fear of an IDF response powerful enough to overthrow his regime. This argument fails to take into account the calculus in Washington: President Barack Obama would not countenance, at least in the initial stage, an Israeli military strike on a scale greater than the limited operation he is contemplating for his own armed forces in the wake of the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack on Damascus last Wednesday, Aug. 21. Israel would therefore not be allowed to endanger Assad’s rule.
Assad’s Russian advisers are no doubt briefing him on this Israel-Syrian equation.
According to debkafile’s military sources, Israeli strategists prefer to believe that Syria will choose Jordan for a conventional missile strike in reprisal for a US attack - rather than go for Israel.
This assumption was refuted by the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem Tuesday, Aug. 27, at a press conference he held in response to US allegations of his government’s responsibility for using chemical weapons in East Damascus.
Accusing the US Secretary of State John Kelly of telling lies and fabricating evidence against his government, Moallem insisted it had not used chemical weapons or delayed permission for the UN team to launch its investigation under guaranteed security in government-controlled sites. That team only arrived Saturday, Aug. 23, and was not ready for its mission before Monday, Moallem insisted.
He went on to question US objectives in seeking to attack Syria, and answered his own question by saying: “Anything that happens in this area is in Israel’s interest. Such aggression will first of all benefit Israel, secondly, the military efforts of Al Nusra, al Qaeda’s armed group in Syria. “So the Americans would be serving Israel first and Al Qaeda second.”
As for Jordan, Moallem stressed Syria’s friendly and neighborly ties with the Hashemite kingdom. “We have no thought of acting against Jordan,” he said, and advised Amman not to let itself be persuaded to give up its friendship with Damascus.
debkafile’s military sources add: Washington may avoid the need to punish Syria for a potential attack on Jordan by harnessing the Saudi Air Force. In response to a joint US-Amman invitation, Saudi warplanes could cross through Hashemite airspace and blast targets in Syria. They would use intelligence input and coordination support from US air commands.
The Saudi air base at Tabuk near the Jordanian border was reported Tuesday to have placed its F-15 squadrons on the ready. A French squadron of Rafale bombers is also based at Tabuk.
The situation could take a different turn if Syria targeted the US forces deployed in Jordan.
For all these reasons, Israel is more likely than Jordan to be first in line for Syrian payback for a US attack. IDF commanders are well aware of this danger and are gearing up for the challenge. Part of their planning may be to stage the first Israel-Syrian military confrontation in Jordan and over its skies and not just in Israel.
That Israel is under explicit threat was made amply clear in statements coming Tuesday from Syria, Hizballah, Iran and implicitly, Russia. When Moallem said Tuesday that Syria would defend itself in the case of a US strike “using all available means,” he felt safe in including Syrian allies in this category.
Those allies are evidently resolved not to stand by idly if Syria is attacked.
The nature of their promised assistance to Bashar Assad was no doubt conveyed to Barack Obama’s intermediaries, UN Deputy Secretary Jeffrey Feltman and Oman’s Sultan Qaboos, Monday, when they met Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani Monday, to promote the US president’s bid for an understanding on Syria – as reported exclusively by debkafile.
So the US president must by now know how many players will jump in and where, in consequence of an American attack on Syria. This means that Washington may find it impossible to keep the operation within the predetermined confines desired by the US president.
Jerusalem as well as Washington realizes how widely the fallout may spread, but Israeli leaders are keeping this prospect under their hats to avoid public panic.

Suleiman, Saniora Fail to Agree on New Government
Naharnet /A meeting held over the weekend between President Michel Suleiman and al-Mustaqbal bloc leader MP Fouad Saniora ended with no results on the form of the new government, media reports said Tuesday.
Al-Liwaa daily said that Saniora visited Suleiman at Baabda palace on Sunday to inquire him on his latest call for an all-embracing government and the resumption of the national dialogue.
But their meeting did not come out with a clear result after Suleiman told the lawmaker that it was up to Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam to interpret the meaning of an all-embracing cabinet.
According to al-Liwaa, the president also told Saniora that he saw a 24-member cabinet divided equally between the March 8, March 14 and the centrist camps as the best choice.
But An Nahar newspaper said Suleiman's proposal was withdrawn hours following the Baabda meeting after Hizbullah reiterated its rejection of such a formula.
The Hizbullah-led March 8 alliance is calling for more shares in the new government while its foes in the March 14 coalition asks for the party's exclusion from the cabinet over its participation in Syria's civil war.
Despite the failure to reach any agreement, sources close to Suleiman said the president was awaiting a “bold decision” from Salam on the formation of a government that includes all parties.
Another source quoted the premier-designate as saying that Salam discussed the issue with the president on Sunday.

Lieberman: Hizbullah, Syria Not Interested in Conflict with Israel
Naharnet/Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Avigdor Lieberman said Tuesday that neither Hizbullah nor the Syrian regime were interested in engaging in war with the Jewish state.
"Hizbullah and (Syrian President Bashar) Assad are not interested in a conflict with Israel. They understand the consequences of Israel entering the battlefield and beginning to play an active role," Lieberman told Israeli Army radio. Only "an extreme incident" would necessitate an Israeli response, he said. The former foreign minister stressed that the transfer of chemical weapons to Hizbullah or a missile attack on Israel were cases that would require a military response. Lieberman said that, while Israel has no interest in becoming involved in Syria's civil war, a possible strike by the U.S. and its allies against Assad could potentially "drag" Israel into the conflict.
He told his interviewer that the U.S. position as the world's leading super power and Washington's ability to influence world events would be judged by whether or not it strikes Syria.
Western countries including the U.S. are considering their response to an alleged chemical weapons attack by Assad's regime on August 21.
But the Syrian government, which is backed by Hizbullah members in its fight against the armed opposition, accused rebels of using the chemical weapons.
It also warned Washington not to launch any military action, saying such a move would set the Middle East ablaze. Syria is intertwined in alliances with Iran, Hizbullah and Palestinian militant groups. The country also borders its longtime foe and U.S. ally Israel, making the fallout from military action unpredictable.

Security Forces Release Sketch of Suspected Tripoli Bomber
Naharnet /The Internal Security Forces published on Tuesday an illustration of a suspect linked to the twin bombings in the northern city of Tripoli on Friday. It also requested that citizens inform the concerned authorities of any information they may have of the suspect. They should call an ISF Intelligence Bureau hotline of 1788 or the regular line of 01/624100 if they have any information on the suspect. According to the law, the identity of citizens who provide information will remain anonymous. Al-Joumhouria newspaper reported on Tuesday that Sheikh Ahmed al-Gharib, the main suspect in the twin bombings that targeted Tripoli, confessed that he is involved in the blasts that killed 45 people and wounded at least 800 others. The report said that Gharib confessed to his prior knowledge of the blasts that targeted Sunni mosques in Tripoli, adding that a Syrian side is behind them.
Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel however said in comments published in As Safir newspaper that “the person detained over the Tripoli blasts hasn't confessed to anything yet.”
The blasts targeted the Taqwa and al-Salam mosques in Tripoli on Friday as worshipers were still performing weekly prayers.

Army Clashes with Gunmen in Tripoli, Two Wounded
Naharnet /Two people were injured in an exchange of gunfire between gunmen and the Lebanese army in the northern city of Tripoli, media reports said on Tuesday. The overnight clashes took place in Mallouleh bridge, where the armed men erected a checkpoint. The gunmen opened fire at Jabal Mohsen during the clashes with the army, leading to tension and sniper activity between the neighborhood and its rival Bab al-Tabbaneh neighborhood. The army contained the situation before it further escalated. On Friday twin car bombs struck the mostly Sunni Muslim northern port city of Tripoli, just a week after a blast ripped through a densely populated Shiite area of Beirut's Ruwais. Tripoli has witnessed recurrent clashes between the Sunni-majority neighborhood of Bab al-Tabbaneh and the mainly Alawite neighborhood of Jabal Mohsen. The clashes have become more frequent and deadly since the beginning of the Syrian uprising, which pits the Sunni-led opposition against the regime of President Bashar Assad, who is Alawite.

Report: Sheikh Confesses Prior Knowledge of Tripoli Blasts
Naharnet/Sheikh Ahmed al-Gharib, the main suspect in the twin bombings that targeted the northern city of Tripoli, confessed that he is involved in the blasts that killed around 35 people and wounded 900 others.
According to al-Joumhouria newspaper published on Tuesday, Gharib contradicted himself several times during investigations, carried out by the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau.
The report said that Gharib confessed to his prior knowledge of the two blasts that targeted Sunni mosques in Tripoli and that a Syrian side is behind them. However, Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel said in comments published in As Safir that “the person detained over Tripoli blasts hasn't confessed to anything yet.” “Investigations are ongoing with him and with other people,” Charbel stated. He pointed out that the judiciary will decide whether to release him or keep him in detention. The first bomb struck in the city center at the al-Salam mosque as worshipers were still inside. The second explosion struck just minutes later outside al-Taqwa mosque, about two kilometers away, near the port. On Monday, al-Joumhouria reported that an informer, identified as Moustapha H., contacted the intelligence bureau claiming that he has important information over a Sheikh from Tripoli who is planning to target al-Mustaqbal MP Khaled al-Daher, former ISF chief Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi and Salafist cleric Sheikh Salem al-Rafehi. The daily said on Tuesday the informer has financial disputes with Gharib. A surveillance camera had spotted Gharib in the area near the explosion that took place near al-Salam mosque.

Asir Warns Christians of Blasts, Blames Tripoli Bombings on Syria, Allies
Naharnet/Fugitive Islamist cleric Ahmed al-Asir on Tuesday warned Christians that bombings might target their areas, citing Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's latest speech, in which he said that Takfiris might target any Lebanese region with the aim of inciting strife. In a new audio recording uploaded to the Internet, Asir extended condolences to “our people in Tripoli, (Syria's) Ghouta and Egypt,” in reference to the twin bombings that left 45 people dead and more than 500 injured in the northern city and the alleged chemical attack near Damascus. "Every prudent person has become deeply convinced that the Iranian-Syrian camp and their tools in the region are behind this criminal act (in Tripoli) and at least they are the prime suspects,” Asir, on the run since the deadly Abra battle, added. “This camp is the prime suspect in this crime, whether it was executed by (Hizbullah), the Syrian Social (National Party), the Baath (Party) or the likes of (jailed ex-minister Michel) Samaha,” Asir went on to say. “It is important not to cover up the truth as some have tried to do thinking that they would be protecting Lebanon from strife,” he added. Asir stressed that no one can convince Tripoli's residents that Nasrallah's speech had nothing to do with the deadly bombings, noting that attacks cannot put an end to their support for the Syrian uprising. The fugitive cleric said Nasrallah “must be held fully responsible for what happened in Lebanon and what is happening at the moment, whether against his sect or against the other sects.”
"I tell our Christian partners to be very cautious because (bomb attacks) in the vein of of what happened in Tripoli and Dahieh might target their streets so that Nasrallah can prove his words that no city or sect will remain safe and that the Lebanese must defend themselves against Takfiris," Asir added. Sheikh Ahmed al-Gharib -- a suspect who has been arrested in connection with the Tripoli blasts and a member of a pro-Syria Islamist group -- has confessed to his prior knowledge of the bombings and to Syria's involvement in the attacks, according to a report published in al-Joumhouria newspaper on Tuesday.

Berri Expresses Concern over Attempts to Divide Muslims
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri expressed fear on Tuesday that those who are behind the deadly blasts that rocked the northern city of Tripoli and Beirut's southern suburbs will continue their attempts to embroil Muslims in sedition. “The current security situation is worrisome and the political situation isn't any better,” Berri said in comments published in As Safir newspaper. He pointed out that politicians acted with a national responsibility in confronting the repercussions of the explosive-laden cars. Berri called on the rival parties to cooperate to end the current political deadlock. Lebanon has been a scene of violent attacks recently. On Friday, two powerful blasts rocked the northern city of Tripoli, killing over 35 people and wounding 900 others. These attacks came eight days after 27 people were killed and around 300 wounded in a car bombing that rocked the Beirut southern suburb of Ruwais, a Hizbullah bastion. Concerning, AMAL movement's decision to cancel a mass rally that was to be held in the southern Nabatiyeh province, its leader noted that the security situation forced it. The rally was set to mark the 35th anniversary of the disappearance of Imam Moussa Sadr and his two companions. “What guarantees that the participants will be able to move safely,” Berri said in comments published in An Nahar newspaper.
The decision was taken after evaluating the situation in the country amid advises by security officials to cancel it. Revered by Lebanon's Shiites as a key spiritual and political guide, Sadr vanished in 1978 amid mysterious circumstances and was last seen in Libya where he was invited by slain leader Moammar Gadhafi. At the time, Sadr was trying to negotiate an end to the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990), in which Palestinian factions were involved.

Aoun Urges Change in Methods of 'Combating Terrorism' in Lebanon
Naharnet /Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun on Tuesday called for a change in the methods of “combating terrorism” in the country, slamming what he called the “chaos” that characterizes the relations among the various security agencies. “Everyone knows that we had warned against the entry of Syrians and said that they must be registered because we can't host people whose political affiliations we don't know, even if they come from a neighboring country,” Aoun said after the weekly meeting of the Change and Reform bloc in Rabiyeh. “We also called for controlling the border and the illegitimate border crossings, but the survey (of refugees) and the controlling of the border and crossings did not happen and our calls fell on the deaf ears of the security officials,” Aoun added. He noted that the number of Syrian refugees has swollen to more than one million “and our ministers proposed plans to reach a solution that guarantees their return to their country.” Aoun recalled that he had told premier Najib Miqati “countless times” that it is unacceptable to “keep 400,000 civilians in Tripoli under the mercy of 400 gunmen.” Commenting on the latest audio message released by Sheikh Ahmed al-Asir, Aoun said the fugitive Islamist cleric hinted that “no region will remain immune to attacks in the vein of what happened in Tripoli and Dahieh.”“We will be targeted and we are not better than the others citizens. Had there not been conspiracies involving domestic parties, security measures would have accompanied the escalation on the border, but unfortunately the 'occupied minds' cannot decide anything unless it serves the interest of the occupier,” Aoun added. “Terrorists and Takfiris begin small, just like plants, before they grow bigger and the same can be said about the terrorist Takfiri cells, but state officials are saying that they can't do anything,” he lamented. “We had stressed the need to address terrorism and terrorists, who find a safe haven in society which offers them a cover and rejects any attempt to capture them,” the FPM leader went on to say. Aoun said that he had noted around the national dialogue table that “confronting such acts requires equipment and accurate coordination among all security agencies.” “We also said that security incidents between the army and some Palestinian organizations and some Palestinians spark concern among citizens, who fear that Palestinians might become a party in the domestic conflict,” he added. Aoun warned that “militias jeopardize the state's stability and its ability to control the situations, knowing that these arms can't be compared to the disciplined arms of the resistance.”
Separately, the FPM leader said there are two urgent oil decrees that were submitted to the cabinet before its resignation "and we don't understand why they have not been signed."
"There are political and personal reasons," Aoun charged. "Some parties do not like the energy minister ... and who can prevent the firms from withdrawing their bids should the signature be delayed further?" he warned.
“It is unacceptable to tamper with our credibility towards the international community, especially in the issue of oil, and we know that Israel does not want Lebanon to extract its oil and wants to monopolize the market for a long period ranging from 20 to 30 years,” Aoun added. He noted that negligence and delay in signing the two decrees “serves Israel's interest.”  “Who is responsible for convening the cabinet? The issue is urgent,” he stressed. “We committed ourselves to the terms and conditions and to a cabinet resolution promising that they will be issued on time. May God curse those who delay them, because they would be taking part in the conspiracy,” added Aoun.

Charbel Asks for Explosives Detection Equipment amid Call for Municipal Police Help
Naharnet /Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel revealed that he asked top officials during a meeting of the Higher Defense Council for explosives detection equipment. In remarks to An Nahar daily published Tuesday, Charbel said the conferees, who met under President Michel Suleiman at Baabda palace, tasked the finance ministry to study the cost of such a request and take the appropriate measures.
He also said that efforts are being exerted to hold a meeting for heads of municipalities in Lebanon to study the possibility of the contribution of municipal police in carrying out security patrols to help the Internal Security Forces amid a deteriorating security situation. Charbel described the current situation as “difficult but there are possibilities to keep it under control.” Lebanon has been witnessing a series of security incidents linked to the civil war in Syria. Sectarian street clashes have erupted on numerous occasions in recent months. But the small-scale gunbattles have taken a turn toward car bombings in several cities.
An Nahar quoted ministerial sources as saying that the government is facing a financial problem in paying the compensations for those affected from last Friday's twin car bombings in the northern city of Tripoli and a previous attack in Beirut's southern suburbs. The sources estimated the cost of the compensations at LL76 billion. Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Miqati has announced that 222 housing units have been damaged in the Tripoli bombings alone which compel the government to provide them with the appropriate housing.

Mansour Calls Muallem, Says Lebanon Won't Remain Silent over Israeli Attack on Hizbullah
Naharnet/Caretaker Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour on Tuesday telephoned Syrian FM Walid Muallem and discussed with him “the latest developments and threats against Syria,” amid reports of an imminent military strike against the Syrian regime, Lebanon's National News Agency reported. “This dangerous situation requires an emergency meeting of the (Lebanese) cabinet, or at least a ministerial meeting, to discuss the threats that are being launched against Syria and the possibility of a military strike against it and the direct repercussions on Lebanon,” Mansour told NNA. “Such an emergency meeting would enable Lebanon to confront these challenges or limit their consequences,” he said. Mansour added that the cabinet must convene to address “the dangerous situations although it is acting in caretaker capacity.” Earlier on Tuesday, Mansour warned that a war against Syria will have negative repercussions on the entire region. “Lebanon will not remain silent if Israel exploited a strike against Syria to attack Hizbullah in the South,” he noted. “The resistance and army protect Lebanon and the country has a natural right to defend its land,” Mansour stressed. “Despite its fighting in Syria, the resistance is ready at any time to face any assault,” he explained.
“The resistance was formed to defend Lebanon and its land alongside the army,” he remarked. Western countries including the United States are considering their response to an alleged chemical weapons attack by the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad on August 21. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the West could act on Syria even without the full backing of the United Nations Security Council.
 

Muallem Says Syria Has 'Surprise Defenses'
Naharnet /Syria vowed Tuesday to defend itself as the U.S. defense chief said his country's forces are "ready" to launch attacks against the Syrian regime, accused of deadly chemical weapons attacks.
Asian, Gulf and European stock markets nosedived and world oil prices hit a six-month high over fears of possible military intervention, as the drumbeat of war appeared to grow louder in Western capitals.
Russia, Syrian President Bashar Assad's most powerful ally, warned any use of force would have "catastrophic consequences". During a defiant news conference, Syria Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said Damascus would defend itself against any strikes. "We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal," he said. "The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."
Muallem said Syria had capabilities that would "surprise" the world, and warned that any military action against it would serve the interests of Israel and al-Qaida.
He was speaking as the United States and its allies moved closer to acting, with the Washington Post reporting that President Barack Obama was weighing limited military strikes on targets in Syria.
Such action would probably last no more than two days and involve missiles or long-range bombers, striking military targets not directly related to Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, the newspaper cited senior administration officials as saying. Speaking in Brunei, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the military was prepared to act if Obama called for it. Washington has accused Assad's regime of a cover-up, and has said it will provide more evidence of who was behind the attacks.
"Let me be clear," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday, "the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity."
"Make no mistake. President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people."
President Vladimir Putin of Russia, which has provided Syria's regime with diplomatic cover by blocking U.N. Security Council action, was unimpressed by the mounting evidence of an atrocity.
He told British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday there was no proof Damascus had used chemical weapons, Cameron's office said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said Russia would not get involved in any military conflict, and Moscow has warned that intervention would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.
Nevertheless, senior military officers from Western and Muslim countries began gathering in Jordan on Monday to discuss the regional impact of the war in Syria.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was to take part, along with chiefs of staff from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Canada, Jordanian state media said.
And a senior Israeli delegation visited the White House for high-level talks on the crisis and the showdown over Iran's controversial nuclear program.
Amman has said, however, that its territory "will not be used as (a) launchpad for any military action against Damascus".
Britain, meanwhile, said its armed forces were drawing up contingency plans for action in Syria and Foreign Secretary William Hague said the West could act even without full Security Council backing.
Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said the suspected chemical attack was a "crime against humanity" that "cannot go unpunished".
Davutoglu had said in remarks published Monday that Turkey, a NATO member that borders Syria, would join an international coalition against it even if the Security Council failed to reach a consensus.
Meanwhile, U.N. chemical weapons experts postponed efforts to collect more evidence from the site of alleged attacks on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21 in which more than 300 people were reportedly killed.
They had been due to visit the sites again on Tuesday, but Muallem said their trip had been put off because rebels failed to guarantee their security. The U.N. convoy had come under sniper fire on Monday as it tried to approach the suburb where the attack apparently took place, but managed to visit victims receiving treatment in two nearby hospitals. SourceAgence France Presse.

Washington warns Assad over 'undeniable' chemical weapons attack
By Lesley Wroughton and Erika Solomon | Reuters
WASHINGTON/BEIRUT (Reuters) - The United States put Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on notice on Monday that it believes he was responsible for using chemical weapons against civilians last week in what Secretary of State John Kerry called a "moral obscenity." "President (Barack) Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people," Kerry said in the most forceful U.S. reaction yet to the August 21 attack. Speaking after U.N. chemical weapons experts came under sniper fire on their way to investigate the scene of the attack, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the use of chemical weapons was undeniable and "there is very little doubt in our mind that the Syrian regime is culpable."Kerry said Obama was consulting with allies before he decides on how to respond.
"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world," Kerry told reporters. "The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable. And despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable."
Military chiefs from the United States and its European and Middle Eastern allies met in Jordan for what could be a council of war, should they decide to punish Assad, who has denied using chemical weapons and blamed rebels for staging such attacks. Many hundreds of people died in Damascus suburbs in what appears to have been the worst chemical weapons attack since Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein fatally gassed thousands of Kurds in 1988. U.N. investigators crossed the front line from the center of the capital, which remains under Assad's control, to inspect the Mouadamiya suburb, one of at least four neighborhoods hit by the poison gas before dawn last Wednesday. The United Nations said one vehicle in its convoy was crippled by gunshots fired by "unidentified snipers." The team continued on after turning back for a replacement car. Syrian state television blamed rebel "terrorists" for the shooting. The opposition blamed pro-Assad militiamen.
"I am with the team now," a doctor who uses the name Abu Karam told Reuters by telephone from Mouadamiya. "We are in the Rawda mosque and they are meeting with the wounded. Our medics and the inspectors are talking to the patients and taking samples from the victims now."Wassim al-Ahmad, an opposition activist, said members of the Free Syrian Army umbrella rebel organization and the opposition's Mouadamiya Local Council were accompanying the inspectors on their tour of the suburb.
"The inspectors are now examining victims being treated at a makeshift hospital in Mouadamiya and are taking blood samples from them," Ahmad said.
INTERVIEWING SURVIVORS
Video filmed at the site showed inspectors in black and blue body armor and blue U.N. helmets walking through a street as curious onlookers came up to watch.
They shook hands with men who appeared to be rebels wearing camouflage vests, and were accompanied by doctors and residents. The group descended into the basement of a building where they were told injured survivors were being treated to protect them from more shelling. Another video showed an inspector interviewing a patient and taking notes.
Activists say at least 80 people were killed in Mouadamiya when the district was hit with poison gas. Hundreds of people also were killed in three other rebel-held districts - Irbin, Ain Tarma and Jobar.
An opposition activist said a large crowd of people gathered to air their grievances to the U.N. inspectors, who planned to take samples from corpses.
The inspectors later returned to their hotel and, within an hour, residents reported the shelling of Mouadamiya had resumed. The decision to proceed with the mission despite coming under attack thwarted an apparent attempt to halt the inspectors' work before it began.
"The first vehicle of the Chemical Weapons Investigation Team was deliberately shot at multiple times by unidentified snipers in the buffer zone area," the United Nations said in a statement. "It has to be stressed again that all sides need to extend their cooperation so that the team can safely carry out their important work."
The inspectors had been stuck in a downtown hotel since the attack, waiting five days for government permission to visit the scene a few miles away. They had arrived three days before the incident, with a mandate to investigate earlier reports of more limited chemical weapons use.
ASSAD TOO LATE
Kerry said Assad's decision to finally allow access was too late to be credible. "That is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide," Kerry said, adding that Assad's forces had also destroyed evidence by shelling the area. "Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime, but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up," Kerry said.
He said the U.N. inspectors could at most confirm that chemical weapons were used, not who used them, but that it was Assad's government that has such weapons and the means of delivering them. He said Washington had additional information on the attack that it would make known soon. Washington and its allies say they worry that the time that has elapsed, and continuous shelling by Assad's forces of the affected areas, could make it impossible for the inspectors to collect evidence. The United Nations said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was confident the team could get the data it needs. Speculation has been mounting that Western countries will order some kind of military response to an incident that took place a year after Obama declared the use of chemical weapons a "red line" that would require strong action.
With his international credibility seen increasingly on the line, Obama could opt for limited measures such as cruise missile strikes to punish Assad and seek to deter further chemical attacks, without dragging Washington deeper into the war. The United States has started a naval buildup in the region to be ready for Obama's decision.
In neighboring Israel, citizens have been queuing up for gas masks in case Assad responds to a Western attack by firing on Israel, as Iraq's Saddam did in 1991.
PHONE CONSULTATIONS
With tensions rising over Syria, British Prime Minister David Cameron cut short a holiday to lead a top-level security meeting. Obama, Cameron and French President Francois Hollande all spoke to each other and other allies in the past few days in a flurry of phone calls. Cameron also called Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday.
Several NATO countries have issued statements pledging a response, although none has been specific about what is planned. Top military officers of the United States, Britain, France, other NATO allies and the main anti-Assad countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, met in Jordan on Monday to discuss Syria, diplomats there said.
The conference was planned but took on new significance because of the latest events, the diplomats said.
The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, a co-host of the meeting with his Jordanian counterpart, has been one of the voices in Washington urging caution and emphasizing the costs of a full-scale military intervention in a war in the heart of the Middle East. Obama, who withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq and is winding down the conflict in Afghanistan, is reluctant to involve the United States in another war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Saturday showed about 60 percent of Americans opposed U.S. military intervention, while only 9 percent thought Obama should act.
ASSAD DEFIANT
Assad denies the accusations that his forces used chemical weapons and said the United States would be defeated if it intervened in his country.
"Would any state use chemicals or any other weapons of mass destruction in a place where its own forces are concentrated? That would go against elementary logic," he told the Russian newspaper Izvestia. "Failure awaits the United States as in all previous wars it has unleashed, starting with Vietnam and up to the present day."
Russia, Assad's main arms supplier and diplomatic defender in the U.N. Security Council, says rebels may have been behind the chemical attack. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said any intervention in Syria without a Security Council resolution would be a grave violation of international law.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius noted that Russia and China would probably veto a U.N. Security Council vote to allow strikes against Syria. But British Foreign Secretary William Hague said it would still be possible to respond to a chemical weapons attack without the Security Council's permission.
There are precedents. In 1999 NATO attacked Serbia, a Russian ally, without a Security Council resolution, arguing that action was needed to protect civilians in Kosovo.
Turkey, a NATO ally and major backer of Syria's opposition, said it would join any international coalition even if a decision for action could not be reached at the United Nations.
(Additional reporting by Mariam Karouny in Beirut, Khaled Yacoub Oweis in Amman, John Irish in Paris, Katya Golubkova in Moscow, Steve Holland and Paul Eckert in Washington.; Writing by Matt Spetalnick and Claudia Parsons; Editing by Bill Trott and Christopher Wilson

Russia warns US of 'catastrophic consequences' of Syria intervention
Russia warns US and the West that military action in Syria would be 'illegal.' But a strike on Syria may also 'play into Moscow's hands,' says one expert.

By Fred Weir | Christian Science Monitor –  Russian leaders, increasingly convinced that the West is preparing for imminent military action in Syria, kept up a barrage of criticism Tuesday over what they claim will be an "illegal" and potentially "catastrophic" intervention into the affairs of a sovereign state. A frustrated and increasingly despondent Moscow has already made clear that it can and will do nothing to stand in the way of Western military action against Syria, leaving it with few options beyond diplomatic sniping and rhetorical appeals to global public opinion. Russia has argued that Western nations are stampeding to judgement before all the facts are in about last week's alleged nerve gas attack in a Damascus suburb that may have killed more than 1,000 people. Russia is also stressing that, absent a UN Security Council resolution authorizing force, any attack on Syria will be a violation of international law and a slippery slope that could lead to greater chaos in the region. "Attempts to bypass the Security Council, to once again create artificial, unproven excuses for an armed intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement posted on the ministry's website Tuesday. In another sign that military strikes could be just days away, the US cancelled a bilateral meeting scheduled for Wednesday at which mid-level US and Russian officials were to have discussed plans for the projected September Geneva-2 peace conference, at which Russia still hopes representatives of the Bashar al-Assad regime – brought to the table by Moscow – will sit down and hammer out a negotiated settlement with Syrian rebels sponsored by Washington. "Moscow perceives Washington’s decision to postpone this meeting literally on the eve of the agreed-upon date with serious disappointment," Mr. Lukashevich said.
Georgy Mirsky, an expert with the Center for Development and Modernization with the official Institute of World Economy and International Relations, says that Russia fully expects even limited Western military action will produce unexpected complications, such as civilian casualties, and that will provide Moscow with an opening to take the lead in restarting diplomacy.
"There's nothing Russia can or should do to stop Western military intervention in Syria," he says. "Syria isn't Libya. Battles are going on everywhere, and it will prove impossible to set up a secure zone. There is zero chance that Western forces will launch a ground war. So, it will be limited cruise missile attacks from ships; that might weaken Assad, but will not likely be decisive," he says. "Russia can sit and watch. A propaganda war will rage, and Moscow will be able to say that we wanted peace, we were working for the Geneva-2 conference, but it didn't happen because they opted for military force instead.... As things stand, developments will play into Moscow's hands. The US will compromise itself with another war in another Arab country, and look more than ever like a neo-colonialist power. Why would Obama want this?" he says.

UK's Cameron: Any Syria action must be specific, avoid wider war
LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday that any military action against Syria must be specific and not entail being dragged into a wider Middle East conflict. "This is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war or changing our stance in Syria or going further into that conflict," Cameron told reporters in his first public comments on the matter. "It's about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong and the world shouldn't stand idly by." (Reporting by Andrew Osborn; Editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

Italy says Syria has passed 'point of no-return' with chemical weapons
ROME (Reuters) - Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta said that he agreed with British Prime Minister David Cameron in a phone call on Tuesday that Syria's use of chemical weapons was "unacceptable", according to a statement. "The United Kingdom and Italy agreed on the fact that Syria has gone past the point of no-return with its massive use of chemical weapons," the Italian premier said in a statement. The attacks are "an unacceptable crime that cannot be tolerated by the international community," the statement read. (Reporting by Steve Scherer, editing by Silvia Aloisi)

Canada's PM, Harper, Obama agree that Syrian gas attack requires "firm response"
By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama agree that the use of chemical weapons in Syria requires a "firm response," without defining what such a response might entail.
The two spoke by telephone Tuesday even as the possibility of a U.S.-led strike against the rogue regime of Bashar Assad loomed larger and the U.S. defence secretary said American military forces were ready to attack if ordered. Harper's office said the prime minister agreed with Washington's assessment that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against its own people and called it an outrage.
"Both leaders agreed that significant use of chemical weapons merits a firm response from the international community in an effective and timely manner," said Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for Harper.
The Obama administration said the two men pledged to continue to consult closely on potential responses by the international community. The possibility of military strikes comes even though UN inspectors on the ground in Syria have yet to confirm the use of chemical agents. Harper and Obama discussed the inspection effort. "Both leaders noted efforts by the Syrian regime to delay the work of the UN chemical inspection team, suggesting the regime is attempting to obscure evidence of its actions," MacDougall said. In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron recalled Parliament for an emergency vote on Thursday in response to the alleged chemical assault.
The Arab League flatly blamed the Syrian government for the attack that activists say killed hundreds of people last week. The league said the perpetrators must be brought to justice.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem denied his government was behind the attack and challenged Washington to present proof of its accusations.

Israel says will respond with force to any attack from Syria
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that Israel was not involved in Syria's civil war, but would respond forcefully to any attempts to attack it. "The state of Israel is prepared for any scenario," Netanyahu said in a statement after holding security consultations in Tel Aviv as Western countries weighed a possible military action to punish the Syrian government for an alleged chemical attack near Damascus last week. "We are not a party to this civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt to attack us we will respond and we will respond forcefully," he said. Many in Israel worry that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, embroiled in a 2-1/2 year uprising against his rule, could strike out at the Jewish state in retaliation to any Western attack. Syria's ally Iran warned on Tuesday against foreign military intervention in Syria, saying the resulting conflict would engulf the region.(Reporting by Ari Rabinovitch and Allyn Fisher-Ilan; Editing by David Cowell)

Arab League blames Syria's Assad for chemical attack
CAIRO (Reuters) - The Arab League squarely blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday for a gas attack near Damascus and urged the U.N. Security Council to act, providing what diplomatic sources said was political cover for a possible U.S. strike. Western powers have told the Syrian opposition to expect a strike against Assad's forces within days to punish the attack, according to sources who attended a meeting between envoys and the Syrian National Coalition. The Arab League's statement, issued after an emergency meeting, made no mention of military action. But it accused Assad of genocide and demanded, in unusually strong language, that the perpetrators of last week's poison gas attack, in which hundreds of civilians were killed, face justice. The Arab League holds Syria "fully responsible for the ugly crime and demands that all the perpetrators of this heinous crime be presented for international trials", the statement said. It also called on U.N. Security Council members to overcome their differences and take "the necessary resolutions against the perpetrators of this crime".
Russia and China have vetoed measures against Assad in the Council over the past two years. Russia in particular argued that Western powers abused a resolution in 2011 to justify military action to help topple Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi - action that was endorsed by the Arab League. Diplomatic sources said the Arab League statement had been pushed through by the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in the knowledge that air strikes were being discussed. The two countries have been among the most ardent backers of Syria's rebels and have pressed for firmer action against Assad. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal urged the international community on Tuesday to take a "serious and decisive" stand against the Syrian leader. Syria's civil war has split the region broadly along sectarian lines. Shi'ite Muslim Iran, and its allies in Lebanon and Iraq, have supported Assad. The Gulf Arab states have backed the mainly Sunni Muslim rebels, many of whom are Islamist militants. Iraq and Lebanon, as well as Algeria, withheld their backing for the Arab League statement or parts of it on Tuesday, as they have done in the past. (Reporting by Ayman Samir in Cairo and Yara Bayoumy in Dubai, Writing by Lin Noueihed; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Exclusive: Syria strike due in days, West tells opposition - sources
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis
AMMAN (Reuters) - Western powers have told the Syrian opposition to expect a strike against President Bashar al-Assad's forces within days, according to sources who attended a meeting between envoys and the Syrian National Coalition in Istanbul.
"The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days, and that they should still prepare for peace talks at Geneva," one of the sources who was at the meeting on Monday told Reuters.
The meeting at a hotel in downtown Istanbul was between senior figures of the Syrian National Coalition, including its president, Ahmad Jarba, and envoys from 11 core "Friends of Syria" alliance members, including Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria who is now Washington's pointman with the opposition, the sources said. Facing Russian and Chinese opposition that could dampen prospects for proposed peace talks in Geneva, Assad's foes have vowed to punish a poison gas attack in some rebel-held districts of Damascus on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.
Another source said Ford told Jarba at the gathering that the coalition should "expect appropriate action to deter more use of chemical weapons".
Jarba offered the 11 nations represented in the Friends of Syria core group a list of 10 proposed targets.
They included the Mezze Military Airport on the western outskirts of Damascus, the Qutaifa missile base north of the city and compounds of the Fourth Mechanised Division, a elite unit headed by Assad's feared brother Maher and composed mainly of members of his Alawite minority sect.
"GET TEAM READY" FOR TALKS
The Friends of Syria core group comprises the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. U.N. experts trying to establish what exactly happened in the attack were finally able to cross the frontline on Monday to see survivors - despite being shot at in government-held territory. But they put off a second visit until Wednesday.
"The Americans are tying any military action to the chemical weapons issue. But the message is clear; they expect the strike to be strong enough to force Assad to go to Geneva and accept a transitional government with full authority," a Syrian opposition figure said.
"The message to the opposition was to get a team ready for Geneva, and be prepared for the possibility of a transition. But we must also be ready for the possibility of the collapse of the regime. If the strike ends up to be crippling, and if they hit the symbols of the regime's military power in Damascus it could collapse," the source said. The sources said the meeting was planned before the suspected nerve gas attack on the Damascus suburbs, and was originally meant to discuss preparations for the proposed U.S.- and Russian-sponsored Geneva peace conference, which has been repeatedly put off.
Jarba said this month the coalition welcomed participating in Geneva without conditions, but it still expected the meeting to result in a transition that would remove Assad and his top aides from power.
Assad's foreign minister, Walid Moualem, said in June the authorities were ready to form a broad-based government of national unity, but they would not "head to Geneva to hand over power to another side", in an indication that Assad was not planning to give up control of the country.
(Reporting by Khaled Oweis, Writing by William Maclean; Editing by Alistair Lyon)

The Media of the Massacre
Hussam Itani/Al Hayat
As part of its many renouncements, the Lebanese government has abandoned its mission of controlling and monitoring the public space. It allowed media outlets to literally wreak havoc in a country that is already on the verge of a civil war. One cannot hide behind the pretext that the Lebanese constitution guarantees freedom of expression. In every country in the world, there is a clear distinction between self expression and incitement to crime especially when it comes to calling for civil, sectarian, and ethnic strife. There is not one country in the entire world that would allow the inciters to promote killing directly and publicly via the major media outlets like the Lebanese state is doing. While the security services are terrorizing a number of bloggers, summoning them to humiliating investigations, insulting them simply because they expressed their opinions on social media websites, and threatening to subject them to arbitrary sanctions simply because they are not supported by any of our “good” sects, dozens of journalist-wannabes are roaming TV stations and newspapers, broadcasting their dark hatred, and announcing the nearing of the sectarian inter-killing.
Televisions and newspapers are devoting large fractions of their time and columns to people whose only skill consists of flattering the sects’ leaders and the local and international intelligence officers, to say the least. These “colleagues” only broadcast and promote the issues that they are asked to promote regardless of whether their words will lead to bloodshed or not. The use of arguments and logic does not work with these people who must rather stand trial, along with the owners of the newspapers and televisions where they work, for charges of stirring sectarian sentiments and incitement to kill.
Oddly, whenever a tragic security incident occurs, and instead of broadcasting classical music like they used to do years ago, the Lebanese channels are now hosting deranged guests, launching campaigns to stir people’s sentiments, and broadcasting the live calls of individuals who are actually benefitting from the crime and calling for its propagation. On top of all this pettiness, astrologers and charlatans are also called upon to add to the scourge of a country where everyone can hear the sound of death. Can this kind of behavior be justified by the race to gain viewers in light of the savage competition between the channels? Has the “media scoop” mentality reached its lowest? We say no. Following the conclusion of the Arab role played by the Lebanese media between the 1950s and the 1970s, most of the Lebanese media outlets turned into mere promotional tools for their funders, including those who sponsored the civil war. By definition, media is a two way road: on the one hand, media reflects reality; and on the other, it serves to form the public opinion, thus affecting reality. However, most of the Lebanese media outlets have been on a third mission: to maintain a high level of political and social tension and to justify the upcoming massacre, with the aim of pleasing the funders and the powerful parties, i.e. the real killers in this human slaughterhouse.
Needless to say, the media outlets did not create the present obscure atmosphere and the political and security struggle goes well beyond the borders of Lebanon and its miserable televisions and newspapers. However, we must be wary of the fact that this mentality which wishes to transform everything – including the dead bodies of the Dahyeh and Tripoli blasts – into personal gains is draped with a male coquettish smile.

The Muslim Brotherhood: Origins, Efficacy, and Reach
by Raymond Ibrahim
World Watch Monitor
July 4, 2013
http://www.meforum.org/3596/muslim-brotherhood-origins
Note: The following essay, commissioned and written nearly a year ago but only recently published, has, in light of the June 30 Revolution and ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, been slightly updated with additional bracketed text.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the most important Islamic organization in the world, with tentacles of influence everywhere, both in the Islamic world but also in the West, wherever its purpose—the establishment of a Sharia-enforcing caliphate—can be achieved. The efficacy of this group can be seen in the fact that, less than a century ago, when it was founded, it consisted of very few members; it was violent and eventually crushed and outlawed; today in Egypt, a MB leader, Muhammad Morsi, sits on the throne of the Middle East's most strategic nation, ironically in the name of democracy, where he is trying to enable the totality of Sharia law in Egypt, even as
many resist.
History and Approach
The story of the Muslim Brotherhood, as with many other stories dealing with Islamic importance, begins in Egypt—which still serves as something of a paradigm of the group's strategies and approach in general. Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949), the son of a mosque imam
and Sheikh of the Hanbali school of law, founded the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan incorporated Sufi views, which tend to be more moderate and which teach, among other things, pragmatism and patience. Of course, in an Islamic context pragmatism and patience can easily take on the form of taqiyya and tawriya—Islamic doctrines that instruct Muslims to deceive when it is perceived to be in Islam's interest—and may well explain how Banna came to develop the Muslim Brotherhood's way of operating, to be discussed further below.
A school teacher and imam, Banna was reportedly very charismatic and pivotal to the subsequent growth of the movement, which, when he started it in 1922, consisted of only a handful of members but had burgeoned to half a million in as little as little as ten years. Banna did one thing that not only gave rise and prominence to the Muslim Brotherhood, but all Islamist organizations as well—including al-Qaeda, which is currently headed by Ayman Zawahiri, a onetime Muslim Brotherhood member: he helped politicize Islam at a time when it was seen at best as a personal matter, in much the same way modern-day Westerners view religion.
To understand this, one must understand the history of the Middle East. A few centuries after the chaotic times of the Islamic conquests, Islamic law, or Sharia (etymologically related to the words meaning "way" and "road") was developed and held sway over Islamic lands, in this case Egypt for centuries. Thus, in this sense, Islam, from a historical point of view, has in fact wholly permeated the politics of Islamic law. For example, courts were all ruled according to Sharia dictates; the caliph, again, according to Sharia, was obligated to wage war, or jihad, on his non-Muslim neighbors; and so forth.
However, a new thing happened in 1798: a Frenchman—an infidel, Napoleon—invaded and conquered Egypt. This heralded a new paradigm—that the infidel West (then and often now seen as Christendom) was stronger, and thus better, than the Islamic world. To appreciate this idea fully, one must first understand that, since the time of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, the veracity of Islam and its Sharia have been tied to its temporal success, its ability to aggrandize and enrich its followers with land and warbooty, including slaves.
When Muhammad was just a "prophet" preaching to the Arabs, he spent a decade with nothing but a handful of followers. But when he styled himself as a warlord, attacking and plundering those who did not accept him as prophet, and thereby acquiring many victories and even more war booty for his growing number of followers, Arabians acquiesced to him and his message. Thus, from the start, the veracity of the prophet was tied to his military and temporal successes. The Islamic conquests, whereby Islam's invading armies conquered much of the Old World—from India in the east to Spain in the west—were especial proof that the Islamic way, the Sharia,
was the right way. The West's conquest and subsequent colonization shook this paradigm to its core, causing the majority of nominal Muslims to turn to the West and essentially westernize.
Accordingly, in the colonial era, and even when Muslims ruled Egypt, lots of reforms were made, the jizya was abolished, and political Islam lost its influence. Even if Islam was given formal respect, no self-respecting Egyptian would invoke the Sharia as a way to govern people; they adopted and promoted Western forms—in governance, politics, and even dress and culture. In early 20th century Egypt, especially in the cities, the hijab, or female veil, was a rare oddity. Today it is ubiquitous.
To appreciate this great change, consider the following anecdote. A rare video shows President Gamel Abdel Nasser speaking before a large assembly, and explaining to them how back in 1953 he wanted to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood, and met with its leader. According to Nasser, the very first demand of the Brotherhood leader was for the hijab to return to Egypt, "for every woman walking in the street to wear a headscarf." The audience erupted in laughter at this, then, ludicrous demand; one person hollered "Let him wear it!" eliciting more laughter and applause. Nasser continued by saying he told the Brotherhood leader that if they enforced the
hijab, people would say Egypt had returned to the dark ages (to more laughter), adding that Egyptians should uphold such matters in the privacy of their own homes.
Such was the Egypt that Banna and others inherited. To overcome nearly two centuries of westernization, whereby most Egyptians knew little more about Islam than the five pillars, if that, Banna politicized Islam, making it as it once was. However, he and his followers eventually realized that their message would only resonate if: 1) they took a grass-roots approach to mobilizing Muslims—an approach which inevitably took longer, in this case decades, almost a century, but which as we are seeing has yielded great fruit, and 2) they instituted activism and propaganda, which eventually led to a complex, multi-layered organization, with members from
all walks of life, from peasants to professionals . The Muslim Brotherhood took advantage of pre-existing Islamic organizations—politicizing them, Islamizing them, and mobilizing them. Accordingly, many businesses, schools, and other organizations became attached to the Brotherhood, either formally or informally, as they continue to do to this day. Decades of this further fueled by the group's humanitarian work with laypeople, led to an immense sense of loyalty to the group and always attracted new recruits.
No matter how humanitarian or social, Banna's message, and the Brotherhood's, was/is always couched in Islamic terms. Whether talking about colonialism, health-related issues, education, or nationalism, everything was articulated through an Islamic framework, subtly re-Islamizing the average Egyptian's worldview. Major themes always hammered out included the loss of the caliphate, the weakness of the fragmented Islamic world, and the need to revive the caliphate and enforce Sharia law—the Islamic "way," which was and is always portrayed as the supreme guide to justice and fair dealing.
It is significant to note that, though several General Guides of the Muslim Brotherhood have come and gone since Banna, the latter's overall strategy and tactics have generally remained fixed, depending on the vicissitudes of the times, and the MB's capacities and position vis-à-vis its opponents. To be sure, and perhaps inevitably, the MB, once it became relatively powerful, did engage in terror attacks, especially against the Nasser government, and ended up being outlawed. Banna himself was killed by government forces in 1949.
Due to its popularity, the MB was briefly legalized again, but only as a religious organization, and then banned again in 1954 due to its non-stop insistence that Egypt be governed under Sharia. Egyptian officials were assassinated, with attempts on Nasser's life as well. The government retaliated swiftly, outlawing the group, imprisoning and torturing thousands of members, while others fled to sympathetic nations, especially Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.
A few of the greatest MB leaders and agitators were also executed at this time. One member who was executed under Gamal in 1966 is of special note: Sayyid Qutb—today known as the "godfather" of modern Islamism. Perhaps no figure has impacted the modern Islamist movement as this man, who wrote prolifically and voluminously especially during his incarceration, producing two "classics" that are today still staples of any serious Islamist or jihadi: (in translation) In the Shade of the Quran (a multi-volume exegesis) and Sign Posts, a short primer that very well captures the phase-by-phase approach of the Muslim Brotherhood, the need to use both prudence and act only according to the reality on the ground, the chances of success. While Qutb stressed the need for stages, he also popularized the jihadi movement by arguing that the Islamic world was not sufficiently Islamic and thus needed a jihadi vanguard to overthrow jahiliyya, or the pre-Islamic state of ignorance the Muslim world was currently in.
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "Three basic themes emerge from Qutb's writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims—as he defined them—therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction."
The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood's Qutb's writings cannot be underestimated, as they are quoted regularly by modern-day Islamists. Even al-Qaeda leader Zawahiri regularly quotes Qutb in his writings. Due to Qutb's popularity with terrorists, the Brotherhood's leadership eventually distanced itself from him, openly advocating instead a nonviolent "reformist" strategy from within, which it has followed ever since. [Until the popular June 30, 2013 revolution that overthrew President Morsi, which prompted the Brotherhood to openly engage in violence and terror, seeing they had been exposed and have nothing to lose.]
Due to the popularity of the MB—those many decades of cultivating Egyptian society were not for nothing—Nasser's successor, Anwar al-Sadat, released a great many of their number from the prisons and promised to institute Sharia in Egypt, leading to the introduction of the Second Article of the Egyptian Constitution, which made Islamic law (Sharia) the principal source of jurisprudence. (Ironically it is this matter concerning the Constitution and how Islamic it will be that has created a major rift in Egyptian society today, with Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammad Morsi—and all Islamist factions—pushing for an even greater role for Islam, and portraying as "infidels" and "apostates" all who would resist.)
Even so, Sadat's gesture to Sharia was not enough: after he signed a peace treaty with Israel, the Brotherhood and other Islamic groups constantly agitated against him and he was shortly thereafter assassinated in 1981. In the Mubarak era the group was once again formally outlawed even as independent members were allowed in parliament. But both containment and appeasement were too late: the revivalist spirit of Islam was in the air; banning or arresting individuals was not enough.
Accordingly, after nearly a century of Islamic activism and propaganda by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian worldview that for some generations had been emulating the West as the path to success has diminished by degrees, decade after decade, slowly becoming more Islamic in orientation. With the 2011 revolt in Egypt, which started with moderates and secularists seeking true democracy, all Islamists were released from the prisons—including Egypt's current [now deposed] president—and they now dominate the life of the nation. For the first time, then, not only is the Brotherhood fueling society from a grass-roots level, but from a top-down approach.
Goals, Objectives, and Other Islamists
What is the ultimate goal of the Muslim Brotherhood? Although many Islamic groups have developed since the inception of the MB, many of them born of it. Equally significant, by and large, all Sunni Islamic organizations—including al-Qaeda and the Taliban—want the same thing the Brotherhood does: a Sharia-enforcing caliphate. They differ primarily on how this goal is to be achieved.
Consider the MB's slogan: "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."
This credo represents a statement that even the most radical, jihadi Muslim would embrace, for it captures all the essentials of radical and jihadi Islam, the sort of Islam practiced by terrorist organizations. Similarly, the Brotherhood's English language website describes the "principles of the Muslim Brotherhood" as including firstly the introduction of the Islamic Sharia as "the basis for controlling the affairs of state and society"; and secondly working to unify "Islamic countries and states, mainly among the Arab states, and liberating them from foreign imperialism." In other words, working to unite the Muslim world under a caliphate which it still openly insists is its
ultimate goal. Indeed, not too long ago, Muhammad Badie, the current General Guide of the Brotherhood [arrested August 19, 2013], openly declared that "The Imam [Bana] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world."
This idea of "transitional goals" and objectives for every stage is captured very well by the Brotherhood's vision and is very easily captured by the one word that appears under the Muslim Brotherhood banner of two swords crossed over the Koran, "prepare"—a word taken from Koran 8:60: "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrorize the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged."
In short, the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated to preparing the way for the coming of the caliphate—which, if history is any indicator, is much more problematic than any one, single Islamic state or terrorist organization: all Islamic conquests of non-Muslim, mostly Christian lands occurred under caliphates, including the Umayyad, Abbasid, and of course, the Turkish
Ottoman State.
Having explored some of the history and doctrines of the Muslim Brotherhood, some relevant questions are in order. First, comprehending the motives of the Muslim Brotherhood continues to be difficult for people in the West, whose epistemology for centuries has always separated the realm of religion from the realm of politics. Is the Muslim Brotherhood a political group, or is it a religious group? Such questions plague the West. The fact is, it is both—for in Islam, historically and doctrinally, Islam is politics. The word "sharia" simply means "way", that is, the Islamic way of conducting affairs. It governs every aspect of the believer's life (in Islam, all possible acts are classified according to five categories: obligatory, recommended, permissible, not recommended, and forbidden). Muslim authorities are deemed legitimate or illegitimate based primarily on whether they enforce Sharia on society or not. In fact, this has historically been the grievance that the various Islamist and jihadi groups—beginning with the Brotherhood—have had against the ruling governments and regimes of their respective nations—that they have not been enforcing Sharia law in society.
It bears repeating: the overarching goal of all Islamist and jihadi groups the world over is the establishment of "Allah's rule" on earth. From its inception, this has also been the Muslim Brotherhood's goal—hence the reason it is heavily involved in politics. The primary disagreement more violent Islamists and jihadis have with the Brotherhood has to do with tactics—not the overall vision which they all share: establishment, enforcement, and then spread of Sharia law. Jihadis have long argued that, by (at least formally) disavowing violence—that is, jihad—and instead participating in politics in order to achieve power and implement Sharia, the Muslim Brotherhood has betrayed the call to jihad. For instance, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaeda, was also a former Muslim Brotherhood member when he was fifteenyears old. However, he was soon lured by the call to jihad, abandoned the group, and joined more radical groups in Egypt, including Al-Gam'a Al-Islamiyya (the "Islamic Group") and Islamic Jihad.
Ayman al-Zawahiri is an interesting case in point concerning the tactics of the Brotherhood and its detractors. Many years after he quit the Brotherhood in the late 1960s when he was a teenager, Zawahiri wrote an entire book criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood. Titled Al Hissad Al Murr, or "The Bitter Harvest", Zawahiri argued that the Brotherhood "takes advantage of the Muslim youths' fervor by bringing them into the fold only to store them in a refrigerator. Then, they steer their one-time passionate, Islamic zeal for jihad to conferences and elections…. And not only have the Brothers been idle from fulfilling their duty of fighting to the death, but they have gone as far as to describe the infidel governments as legitimate, and have joined ranks with them in the ignorant style of governing, that is, democracies, elections, and parliaments."
Ironically, however, for all his scathing remarks against them, time has revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy of slowly infiltrating society by a grass-roots approach has been much more effective than Zawahiri's and al-Qaeda's jihadi terror [until, that is, fellow Egyptians and Muslims saw them for what they were and overthrew them; in the West, however, subtle infiltration still works better than terrorism and is still the preferred strategy]. The Brotherhood's patience and perseverance, by playing the political game, co-opting Western language and paradigms, formally disavowing violence and jihad, have turned it into a legitimate player in the eyes of many, to the point that the U.S. government has become supportive of it, even though it was once banned. Yet this does not make the Brotherhood's goals any less troubling. For instance, in July 2012, Safwat Hegazy, a popular preacher and Brotherhood member [since arrested for incitement to terrorism], boasted that the Brotherhood will be "masters of the world, one of these days." Likewise, according to Kamil al-Najjar, who left the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently living under threat of death, "They are trying to deceive the people and they have managed to deceive a lot of Western politicians into believing in them. Their only aim is to control the world with Islam. They know they cannot use force to convert the West, so they use deceit." Even Gamal al-Banna, the brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, had harsh words for the movement his brother founded, saying it totally rejects freedom.
Egypt's Salafis—who are identical to al-Qaeda and other radical Muslims in that they seek literally to emulate the 7th century Muslim prophet Muhammed and the earliest Muslims, who were quite violent and intolerant—are another case in point. Released from the jails and now in parliaments around the Arab world, following the "Arab Spring", Salafis represent the al-Qaeda-type Muslims who, while initially contemptuous of the Brotherhood's political game of patience, have seen the rewards the Brotherhood has nonetheless earned, and thus are also trying to "moderate" their approach, leading to some incongruous moments. Thus, while the Salafi Nour ("Light") Party ran in Egypt's elections, engaged in democracy, and otherwise played the political game, they rarely hid the fact that they saw democracy and elections as a contemptible means to one end—Sharia law. Thus, one Salafi cleric appears on video telling Muslims to commit voter fraud if they can to see that an Islamist candidate wins; another portrayed elections as a jihad, saying that whoever dies during voting becomes a martyr. Unlike the Brotherhood, whose members have learned to master the art of taqiyya over the course of decades(dissembling has become almost second nature to them), the Salafis—who share the same ideology as al-Qaeda (that is, that open Islam must be practiced now, with force if necessary) have still not fully learned to play the game, and are simply too honest concerning their designs.
It is perhaps ironic that the Brotherhood's greatest opponents at the current time are not Western governments or human rights groups but Egyptians themselves, including a great many Muslims. Western analysts—here I speak of those who understand the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood—sometimes forget that, whatever the Brotherhood's goals are, to a great many of those Egyptians supportive of the group, they see something entirely different. To them, Islam is goodness, and Sharia is justice—so what is so bad about wanting to implement Sharia, as the Brotherhood has long maintained? This is why Muhammad Morsi received slightly more than 50% of Egypt's vote (and that is with widespread allegations of voter fraud). Many Egyptians, used to the humanitarian side of the Brotherhood—as mentioned, like its Hamas offshoot, the Brotherhood won many people over by its social programs—did not think of an overtly Islamist agenda; or, if they did, to their minds an Islamist agenda meant goodness and justice not wholly unlike in the Western sense (which of course many Muslims are still influenced by).
However, mere months after Morsi became president, he began replacing many key governmental and media positions with Brotherhood members. Worse, he introduced a new Constitution that had a strong Islamist element. Many critics pointed out that the wording was always ambiguous, but in all cases, Sharia was portrayed as the ultimate arbitrator in several aspects. Accordingly, Egyptians rose up against Morsi, in protest after protest—arguing that Egypt is not a "Brotherhood organization" to be run like one. At one point, the forcefulness of the attacks drove him from the presidential palace under the cover of dark. Watching some of
the videos of average people in the streets is eye-opening. Many of them say things like "May I have died when I voted for you Morsi!" and much more derogatory statements not fit to publish. The main reason such Egyptians are disgusted with Morsi has less to do with Islamism and more to do with the fact that Egyptians are still suffering economically and socially, in fact even worse than under Mubarak. Accordingly, Morsi is increasingly seen as more interested in empowering his group and the Islamist agenda than he is in the betterment of Egypt—as well captured by the previous Brotherhood's General Guide who once declared "the hell with Egypt", indicating that the interests of Egypt are second to the interests of Islam. [The last two paragraphs, written several months ago, have culminated in the June 30 Revolution and ousting of the Brotherhood.]
The Arab Spring
This leads to the questions of the Arab Spring—which was pivotally important for the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood: What was it? Who was behind it? How and why did the Muslim Brotherhood most benefit from it? All evidence indicates that the Muslim
Brotherhood had very little to do with the beginnings of the January 25 2011 revolution of Egypt, which saw the ousting of 30-years-long ruler Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, in the early stages, the Muslim Brotherhood leadership forbade young members from participating in the revolt—although many did so anyway. There is even a video of President Muhammad Morsi, in the early stages of the revolution, mocking it, saying "What do you think you'll achieve?"
The reason for this reticence was, of course, not because of any great love for Mubarak, but rather because the Brotherhood likely thought that Mubarak would ultimately prevail, quash the revolution, and then quietly target all those leaders who participated. The Obama administration seems also to have shared this view, for it originally expressed support for Mubarak during the early days of the protest, though it later abandoned him.
The Egyptian Revolution, which followed the Tunisian revolution, was fundamentally a product of the huge frustration of the average Egyptian, especially regarding the immensely poor economic conditions, where many college graduates could not and cannot get a simple job—certainly not one to enable settling down and starting a family, which, in Egyptian society, is the norm. However, the only group outside the government that was so well organized and prepared to exploit the situation was the Muslim Brotherhood—the primary oppositional group to the government for decades. Many relatively new Egyptian secular parties, for example, complained
that presidential and parliamentary elections were conducted too soon after the fall of Mubarak for them to properly mobilize and campaign. But the Brotherhood was ready. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the idea of Islam as the immediate solution for all of Egypt's woes had become very popular among especially the less educated Egyptians—who make up the majority of the nation. Nor did the U.S. State Department's meddling help. As Andrew McCarthy put it, Hillary Clinton did "her part to help the Muslim Brotherhood," by pressuring the military to surrender power and portraying its delay to proclaim a winner as "clearly troubling"— words better reserved for the Muslim Brotherhood's anti-democratic tactics.
The Muslim Brotherhood's Reach and Presence
Both formally but especially informally, the Brotherhood's reach is immense. Two reasons account for this: 1) as the oldest and best organized Muslim organization, it has had ample time and experience to expand, network, and propagate its message around the world and 2) the message it is propagating is usually not seen by Muslims as a "Brotherhood" message but rather an Islamic message, hence its popularity and appeal.
This is an important point that needs to be kept in mind as we explore some of the regions where the Brotherhood is present and influencing society. Because its goals are one and the same with all other Islamists—resurrection of a caliphate and enforcement of Islamic law—it often works in unison with other Islamic organizations, making it especially difficult to determine when an organization is a Brotherhood outfit and when it is simply a likeminded ally. This phenomenon occurs also with jihadi organizations: all too often individual jihadis are in the West conflated with al-Qaeda, under the assumption that all who engage in jihadi activities are al-Qaeda members. Yet often the reality is that there is no affiliation—except, of course, in ideology and tactics. Likewise, although many Islamic organizations maintain close symbolic and ideological ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, they remain largely autonomous.
The heart of the Muslim Brotherhood is also the region it was born: Egypt, which represents the core of the movement. The second layer of presence and influence is the region nearest to Egypt, the Middle East, especially Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Jordan, Iraq, the PA territories, and even throughout the Arabian Peninsula. The third and most recent—and perhaps the most important—region is the West, Europe and North America. Altogether, it is believed that the Brotherhood is present in some 70 countries around the world.
We have already examined the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. As for its next layer of presence and influence, the Middle East, especially those countries closest to Egypt, the following are some of the more important areas where the Brotherhood is known to exist and operate. It is important to note that, as in Egypt, many of these Brotherhood affiliates were founded in direct opposition to the ruling regimes of their respective countries, portrayed as the "moral", "Islamic" substitute for the "secular", "westernized", and, in short, corrupt ruling regimes:
Arabian Peninsula: many Brotherhood members, after being driven out of Egypt in the 1950s and afterwards, found sympathizers and asylum in the Gulf nations. Many of them settled there, influencing those societies, especially by agitating against the authorities. For example, in Saudi Arabia, Brotherhood members formed the Awakening (Sahwa) group, which challenged the legitimacy of the Saudi crown. In nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, Brotherhood members exploited the media presence there, most notably Al Jazeera, to influence Muslims both in and beyond the region with the Brotherhood narrative and propaganda. [This has proven especially true after the June 30, 2013 revolution, as Al Jazeera has unabashedly proven that it is the Brotherhood's mouthpiece, distorting and manipulating news for the group's benefit.] Brotherhood members have also, as in Egypt, gained many seats in parliaments throughout the Gulf. For example, in Kuwait, through the Hadas movement; in Yemen through the Islah movement; and in Bahrain through the Minbar party, which, since 2002, has been the largest elected party. Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef denounced the Brotherhood, saying it was guilty of "betrayal of pledges and ingratitude" and was "the source of all problems in the Islamic world". On the other hand, many Brotherhood members and their descendants who settled in the Peninsula were themselves further radicalized by Saudi Arabia's ultra-Islamic, Wahhabi worldview, bringing it back with them to Egypt and their other countries of origin. The Salafis seem to be the hybrid result of Egyptian Brotherhood mentality mixed with Saudi Wahhabism. Again, this points to the symbiotic relationship that exists between all Islamic groups, for they are all ultimately rooted in the same immutable sources: the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, as captured in the Hadith, and relayed in the Sunna.
Iraq: under Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi Islamic Party—the largest Sunni Islamic political party and a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood—was banned in the 1960s and forced underground for its religious agitations. It reemerged soon after the U.S. toppled Hussein, and has since been a harsh critic of the U.S. while simultaneously taking part in government and in the transitional process.
Iran: although a predominately Shia Muslim country, and the Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni in doctrine, it is clear that the Muslim Brotherhood, the modern-day pioneers of political Islam, have influenced the Shia of Iran. For example, Nava Safari, who founded Fada'iyan-e Islam, an Iranian Islamic organization active in Iran in the 1940s and 50s, was highly impressed by the Muslim Brotherhood. From 1945 to 1951 the Fadain assassinated several high level Iranian personalities and officials who they believed to be un-Islamic, including anti-clerical writer Ahmad Kasravi, Premier Haj Ali Razmara, former Premier Abdolhossein Hazhir and Education and Culture Minister Ahmad Zangeneh. Again, it must be stressed that, even within the Sunni-Shia divide, which is very real, much cooperation exists, specifically in the context of resurrecting a caliphate and enforcing Sharia. The prevailing logic is that the greater enemy is the infidel (U.S., Israel, etc.), and that it is beneficial for all Muslims to work together for their subjugation. Then they may resume their internal struggle for overall mastery.
Jordan: the Brotherhood is represented by the Islamic Action Front, which was founded in the 1940s and has deeply influenced segments of society through charity, propaganda, and indoctrination. At various times, and under various leaders, it has vacillated between militancy—often influenced by Palestinian elements—and the Brotherhood's hallmark approach of patience and perseverance, working with the Hashemite rulers. To be sure, during the 2011 uprisings, the group became much more assertive. Having failed, it has now slipped back into the diplomatic course, calling for internal, peaceful reforms.
In North Africa, west of Egypt, the Brotherhood's existence has again been positioned in the context of resisting secular/corrupt rulers, this time, the colonial powers themselves. For example, in Algeria, Brotherhood members took part in the nation's war of independence from France. Due to their calls for Sharia, they were eventually marginalized by the secular FLN
party. In Tunisia, the Brotherhood has had a strong impact on that nation's Islamists, particularly al-Nahda, which was formed in 1989 and was largely inspired by the Brotherhood. Since the Tunisian revolution, al-Nahda has received widespread support, and is the new government's most influential voice. In Libya, Brotherhood members have been present since at least the 1940s, when King Idris offered them refuge from Egypt. After Colonel Gaddafi seized power, he, like all other Arab leaders, seeing the threat of the Brotherhood, worked hard to eliminate them. However, they maintained a presence there, and most notably were involved in the
opposition that overthrew Gaddafi.
PA Territories: Hamas, which maintains a militant, jihadi wing, is a Brotherhood offshoot, founded during the First Intifada in 1987. Like its parent organization, it quickly became popular with the Palestinian people in large part because of its charitable services. And like its parent organization, over the years it has managed to indoctrinate the average Palestinian Muslim through its propaganda. While Hamas is dedicated to the elimination of the state of Israel, in fact this objective ties in very well with the overall objective of the Muslim Brotherhood: the global resurrection of a caliphate. After all, any number of Muslims—including many influential Egyptian Brotherhood members—maintain that the seat of the caliphate must be Jerusalem. Thus, even though an organization like Hamas seems to be engaged in a "different" endeavor—the elimination of Israel—in fact, this objective corresponds very well to Brotherhood objectives, and is seen as just one more necessary phase.
Syria: the Brotherhood has been present there for decades and, after the Ba'th party took over in 1963, it became the main Sunni opposition force against the Alawite Assad clan. Resonating with the Sunni majority of Syria, the Brotherhood in many ways spearheaded a violent revolt against the then President Hafiz Assad. However, it was crushed in the 1982 Hama uprising. Afterwards, the group was largely politically inactive in the country, although it maintained a strong support network there—a perfect example of the difficulties involved in determining who a formal Brotherhood affiliate is, and who simply shares their exact worldview, and thus is a natural ally and affiliate. The ongoing uprisings against Assad have a strong Brotherhood element, especially among the Islamist/Salafi factions. A recent Washington Post article describes the Brotherhood as playing a "dominant" role.
Sudan: the Brotherhood maintains a significant, though informal, presence, and has played an important role in the mass Islamization campaigns the Khartoum regime has carried out, often in the context of genocide. Brotherhood members make up a large part of the current Khartoum regime, following the 1989 coup d'état by General Omar Hassan al-Bashir. The National Islamic Front (originally the Islamic Chart Front) which grew during the 1960s, with Islamic scholar Hasan al-Turabi becoming its Secretary General in 1964, is a Brotherhood offshoot.
As for the third layer of the Muslim Brotherhood—its newest and perhaps most important layer of presence—the West, in Europe, formerly Christendom, and home of the original infidel par excellence, the Brotherhood has made great strides in recent years, growing as it has with the large influx of Muslim immigrants and their offspring in Europe. It operates often under the umbrella of other Muslim organizations, which appear innocuous, such as the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organizations, and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. The group is also involved in setting up a vast and sophisticated network of mosques, schools, and Islamic charities.
Russia: the Muslim Brotherhood is banned there.
United States: the Brotherhood is also in America, where, according to one captured document, the Brotherhood "understand their work in America is a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands so that Allah's religion [Islam] is victorious over all religions." Accordingly, the Brotherhood has founded and/or works under the cover of several prominent Muslim organizations in America, including the Council on American-Islam Relations ("CAIR"), the Muslim Students' Association (MSA), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and the Muslim American Society (MAS).
With lots of funding and organization, and a Western willingness to dialogue with Muslims, the Brotherhood has naturally taken over, and received much legitimacy from European governments, convinced as they are that, by giving the most prominent Muslim organizations much representation, Westerners are demonstrating their "tolerance".
The Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized of Muslim organizations; its ultimate goals—establishment of caliphate and enforcement of Sharia—are shared with all Islamists; its tactics of patience and perseverance—and of course dissembling—have proven themselves more effective than violent jihadi tactics; and it is now widely described as a "moderate" organization (indeed, one U.S. official absurdly referred to it as a "largely secular" organization) and it is thus seen as a legitimate player by many Western governments. There is no doubt that the Brotherhood will continue spearheading the Islamist movement around the world, gaining more and more recruits, both formal and informal, as it edges closer to realizing its ultimate goals.
***Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War in Christians (published by Regnery in cooperation with Gatestone Institute, April 2013). He is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.