Nixon Center's Plumber's Unit?

I noted with great interest when looking at my blog stats this evening that someone from the Nixon Center showed up today to download most of my blog posts here at Existential Space (they downloaded ~120 of my 145 posts):


You might recall that over the past few weeks I've been having a bit of a debate with Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke of the Nixon Center following the publication of their article in the last issue of Foreign Affairs, "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood", where they claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has spawned virtually every single terrorist organization in the world, had "rejected jihad" and "embraced democracy".

Startled by those outrageous claims, I responded at FrontPage with a critique, "Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood", (blogged on it here) where I remarked:

As the worldwide jihad has grown in intensity in recent years, the Brotherhood’s supporters in the US are trying to capitalize on the upward trend of Islamic radicalization to paint the organization as “moderate” on this shifting scale. This is precisely the methodology employed by Leiken and Brooke, who attempt the Herculean task of cleaning out the Augean Stables of the Muslim Brotherhood’s long involvement in terrorist activity through misrepresentation and outright fabrication.

A few weeks later, Leiken and Brooke attempted to respond to my critique, "A Response to Patrick Poole's 'Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood'", engaging in a shameless attempt at doublespeak by claiming that there was some kind of distinction to be made between the Brotherhood's support for terrorism in the name of "defensive jihad" against innocent Israeli civilians and American troops serving in the Middle East and the "global jihad" against "Jews and Crusaders" proclaimed by al-Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood so enthusiatically welcomes Leiken and Brooke's reponse to me that they reprinted it on their English-language website.

What they didn't expect, however, was less than a week later I would begin a devastating 3-part rejoinder to their demogoguery, "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 1" [Part 2] [Part 3] (see my blog entry, "A Rejoinder to the Muslim Brotherhood Lackeys")

Once again, Leiken and Brooke rely on evasion, duplicity and outright lies (I’ll discuss one glaring example of this latter tactic in relation to statements they made regarding the Brotherhood’s Jordanian affiliate) – methods not dissimilar to those used by the Muslim Brotherhood itself – to avoid answering the hard questions posed not just by myself, but by analysts from all across the political spectrum, about the organization’s deep and long-time connections to terrorism, their supposed disavowal of violence, and the genuineness of their claims to be favorably inclined towards democratic activity.

Since that time, I've been receiving regular visits from the Nixon Center to this blog, but they either haven't found the courage or the time to respond.

So what do I make of their new-found interest in my writings? It seems rather than respond to the substance of my arguments (my rejoinder came out to a full 54 pages and cited 50+ scholarly papers, government reports and journalistic works contradicting their claims) they are planning a full-frontal ad hominem attack - the last refuge of scoundrels left without any substance to their arguments.

Honestly, I feel sorry for the Nixon Center intern that they are probably forcing to go through all of these blog posts searching for something they can twist out of context and attack me with. but I hope they don't forget to include in their literature review some of my previous work (most of which I link to in the sidebar), such as my translation of Sixteenth Century Reformation-era political works, my previous public policy reports, the articles I've done for other publications (WorldNetDaily, American Thinker, etc.), or my worldview essay series for Christianity & Society.

Who knows? While they are already on ideological lockdown on the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood, they might nonetheless (or at least the Nixon Center intern) might learn a few things.

UPDATE (05/02/07): Welcome again to everyone joining us today from the Nixon Center!

Albania and the Perils of the 21st Century

While it is easy to get me to speak endlessly on any topic, if there's one topic that's near and dear to my heart it is anything having to do with my travels to Albania. I get teary just thinking about it. I should qualify at the outset that I'm not Albanian; in fact, I would be reminded of that fact anytime I walked down the streets of Tirana, at 6'3" towering over virtually every Albanian male. But in my travels there, I was the grateful recipient of the overwhelming hospitality of the Albanian people, which has made me a friend of the country ever since.

So I was pleased earlier this week when I submitted an article to The American Thinker reflecting on the changes that are occurring, and have occurred, since my first visit there in March 1994 - just a few years after the country emerged from one of the most oppressive Communist regimes ever. During those dark years, Albania was officially atheistic. After Communism, religious struggle was unheard of; today, that is no longer the case, as I discuss in my American Thinker article published this morning, "Albania and the Perils of the 21st Century".

Prompted by a recent Washington Post article by Mary Jordan, "Albanians Discover God, If Not Old-Time Religion", in my article I discuss the growing conflict between Christians and Muslims in the country, caused by the exponential growth of Saudi Wahhabi-backed mosques all over the country. As I mention, I witnessed this phenomena first-hand.

Thus, not even two decades after emerging from Communist atheistic darkness, Albania is right in the middle of the current conflict between Islam and the rest of the world. As one of the areas historically straddling the divide between East and West, and a former battleground between Christian Europe and Islamic imperialism, Albania is one of the most important areas to watch to guage how this newest battle in the ancient conflict is going. I conclude:

Once more, Albania faces extraordinary odds. Yet it might be that the country's survival over decades of brutal atheism may be the key to preserving its hard-won freedoms. The developing story of Albania and the perils of the 21st Century is very much our own. Paying attention to their story, their failures and successes, along with their long history in this battle, may be the lessons we must eventually learn to save ourselves in the ideological and religious long-war that lies ahead.

Read the whole article! And here's a picture of me at the tender age of 25 somewhere in middle of nowhere Southern Albania.

Central Ohioans Against Terrorism New Blog!

To keep up on the many terrorism-related news and events in the Columbus area, be sure to add a bookmark to the new blog for Central Ohioans Against Terrorism! Two new posts discuss the Al-Qaeda problem in Columbus and the establishment media's silence on it.

A Rejoinder to the Muslim Brotherhood Lackeys

Over at FrontPage Magazine today is Part 1 of my rejoinder to Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke of the Nixon Center, "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood" [Part 2] [Part 3]. This is in response to their attack last week, "A Response to Patrick Poole's 'Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood'".

There are four areas I address in this segment of my rejoinder:

1) The distinction they attempt to draw between terrorism committed for the sake of "defensive jihad" and "global jihad". According to Leiken and Brooke, the former justifies terrorism against Israel and the US in Iraq by groups like HAMAS and Iraqi insurgents, while the "war against Zionists and Crusaders" is being waged by al-Qaeda, etc. They are forced to make this meaningless distinction because the Muslim Brotherhood enthusiastically endorses and supports HAMAS, and Brotherhood clerics have issued fatwas permitting attacks against US soldiers. I argue this is a distinction without a difference, as the Brotherhood has not abandoned violence, which directly contradicts their claim of a "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood.

2) They claim that in the late 1960s, the Muslim Brotherhood rejected the jihadist doctrine of Sayyid Qutb, and adopted more peaceful, non-violent ideology. They point to Hasan al-Hudaybi's book, Preachers, Not Judges, as proof of this shift. But as I document, not only did Hudaybi pen that volume while he was in prison, when he first heard of Qutb's book, Signposts, he believed that it represented the "future of our organization". I also note that Hudaybi's book, which Leiken and Brooke claim is the key piece of evidence in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideological shift and critical for understanding the organization's strategy today, has not been reprinted in Egypt for almost 30 years, and has not been reprinted anywhere since 1985, while Qutb's Signposts is perhaps the best-selling Arabic-language book of the past half-century.

3) The pair equate their interpretation of "defensive jihad" with the Christian doctrine of "just war", though the latter has never permitted terrorism against innocents. In the end, whether it is "defensive jihad" or "global jihad", it is all terrorism and violence; and since the Brotherhood preaches both, there is little room to pronounce them "moderate".

4) In their original Foreign Affairs article, and in their response last week, Leiken and Brooke make much ado about alleged differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda. They point to a statement last year where Ayman al-Zawahiri denounced the Muslim Brotherhood for participating in Egypt's parliamentary elections, where they won 20 percent of the seats. But we find that Zawahiri's position is unique amongst al-Qaeda, and the two organizations actually drew closer last summer during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. And al-Qaeda actively operates in the Palestinian Authority with the full knowledge and support of HAMAS, the Brotherhood's Palestinian affiliate and terrorist organization. Thus, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are much closer than they would like us to believe.

Thanks to Doug Farah and Alyssa Lappen for their respective posts at Counterterrorism Blog ("The Islamist Charm Offensive") and The American Thinker ("The Fount of Modern Terror").

UPDATE: "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 2" is now online. Here's my summary statement:

"Today I turn my attention to several national affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East – the Palestinian terrorist organization HAMAS, the pro-HAMAS Islamic Action Front (IAF) in Jordan, the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Constitution Movement (ICM) in Kuwait, and the genocidal National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Sudan. The activity of these respective Brotherhood affiliates, and their ties to the main Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt, severely undercuts Leiken and Brooke’s assertion of a “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood."

UPDATE #2: "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 3 (Conclusion)" is now up. Here's a summary:

1) The very un-moderate statements of the so-called “moderates” they identify within the Muslim Brotherhood;

2) I take note that many of the reformists within the Brotherhood, many of whom served in the organization’s leadership, left a long time ago (1996) to form the Al-Wasat (“Center”) Party, frustrated by the radicalization and ideological lockdown within the Brotherhood;

3) I respond to their accusation that US foreign policy is responsible for Islamic radicalization in the Middle East;

4) I document my previous claim that the Brotherhood has engaged in vote rigging and rampant financial fraud in their administration of the professional syndicates in Egypt, as well as observing that the sole piece of evidence they cited in their response on this point was subject to some suspicious editing on their part;

5) I directly challenge their claims that the Muslim Brotherhood has not been implicated in the violent and fatal attacks against the Coptic community in Egypt by citing a report published by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, in addition to reports issued by the Coptic community and articles in the Egyptian press;

6) I revisit the events surrounding the military demonstration by Muslim Brotherhood youth cadres at Al-Azhar University this past December, which prompted the current government crackdown on the organization, as evidence that
the intentions of the Brotherhood are not entirely peaceful;

7) I observe that their characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate in France, the UOIF, as a “moderate” organization is directly contradicted by recent studies published by their own organization, the Nixon Center, and that most careful researchers have concluded that France’s policy of embracing the Muslim Brotherhood has been a catastrophic failure and fueled Islamic radicalization – the same policy Leiken and Brooke demand the U.S. implement.

On the basis on the extensive evidence I have provided throughout this report, I conclude that when it comes to anything challenging the carefully manicured image of the Muslim Brotherhood crafted by Leiken and Brooke, they resort to the old maxim: see no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil. Other contradicting evidence is steadfastly ignored. In the event that fails, their policy has been: attack the critic. This is hardly the way to determine US foreign policy, but admittedly this is how business is conducted in the think tanks and policy shops of the Beltway intelligentsia.

The Muslim Brotherhood's Lackeys Strike Back!

A few weeks ago I had an article published at FrontPage, "Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood" (blogged on it here), which critiqued an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke, "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood". Well, this morning the pair launch a counter-strike, "A Response to Patrick Poole's 'Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood'".

Having done just a quick read-through, it seems that Leiken and Brooke are determined continue their policy of outrageous falsehoods and outright duplicty to get us to "ignore the man behind the curtain" regarding the MB.

Here are just a few quick thoughts:

• Yet again, any evidence that flatly contradicts their argument about the Muslim Brotherhood's "moderation" is either ignored or immediately discounted and quickly explained away. Anyone within the Brotherhood that has said or done something that betrays something other than "moderation" -- even if it is the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, the top ranking officer of the organization -- is attributed to "hard-line" and "controversial" figures, and out-of-step with the supposed majority "reformist" elements of the MB. And to make sure they cover all their bases, I have "ripped everything out of context".


• They ignore the analysis I gave of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's 2004 Reform Initiative, where the Brotherhood outlined their vision of "democracy" and detailed their plans for an Islamic state governed by shari'a, where non-Muslims will be prohibited from holding public office with any substantive authority. But remember, they're moderate!


• They ignore as well the role that the Muslim Brotherhood's extensive financial networks have played in financing virtually every Islamic terrorist organization in the world, including Al-Qaeda (putting the lie to their repeated claims that the MB rejects Al-Qaeda's "global" jihad). Much like the monster under the bed, if you ignore it, it will go away.


• Once again HAMAS, the terrorist organization that is the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, is virtually non-existent in their analysis (two paragraphs of their response). And they explain, since HAMAS is only killing Jews in Israel, instead of Americans (even though they do kill Jewish Americans every now and then, which they apparently expect us to forgive and forget), all is well. And they assure us that the relationship between the Palestinian and Egyptian branches are "more strained than Poole believes" (and they make sufficiently clear that they are also experts about what I believe).


• They quibble over the definition of "rejecting jihad" and "rejecting global jihad", which when you're getting your head cut off, or your children are being blown to bits in the market square, makes all the difference in the world.


• They completely fabricate that I believe that the Egyptian government is only cracking down on Muslim extremists, and that I am ignoring the plight of bloggers, journalists, etc. under the Mubarak regime. Where exactly did they get this?


• They accuse me of manufacturing claims that the Brotherhood incites violence against the Coptic community, which I'm sure that the Copts will be glad to hear that it's all just a figment of my imagination!

This "response" by Leiken and Brooke is as flatly dishonest as the response they recently offered to Douglas Farah and other critics of their Foreign Affairs article (Farah offers a detailed response at his blog) two weeks ago.

And I would direct your attention to a must-read entry yesterday at Counterterrorism Blog by Bill West ("Some US Diplomats & Politicians Think MB = “Moderate” Brotherhood - They Should Think Twice") taking note of an Adnkronos International (AKI) report that HAMAS has now opened up operations against the US in Iraq as "Iraqi HAMAS". I'm sure that Leiken and Brooke will remind us next how strained the relations are between the moderates and the new Iraqi HAMAS branch. Needless to say, a more detailed rejoinder to their response will be forthcoming.

Finally, let me also direct you to my headline article today at FrontPage on "Mortgage Fraud Funding Jihad".

UPDATE: Following up on a point I made above, the picture below taken in 2005 shows a crowd of the Muslim Brotherhood faithful demonstrating their friendship to the Copts with rocks, bottles, sticks and machetes. With friends like these...

The Quranic Concept of Power

I've previously written on Pakistani General S.K. Malik's critically important work, The Quranic Concept of War. I've gone so far as to post this very difficult to find work online in its entirety a few months ago. This basic work is essential for understanding the Islamic way of war and its religious justification (the doctrine of jihad).

Now I'm glad to make available online Malik's expanded treatise on military strategy, The Quranic Concept of Power. This hefty volume (444p.) expands on the theme of his previous work (155p.), and is even more scarce than the Concept of War. Only 500 copies were printed by the publisher in Pakistan. Hopefully, we can soon have Malik's study of the Muslim general, Khalid bin Walid, online.

Several inquirers have asked me: why are we making these works available? Apart from the fact that we are presently engaged in a war against Islamic terrorism (you might have heard something about it), the study of the Islamic doctrine of war has long been neglected by our military. One observer recently had this to say:

As late as early 2006, the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Mohammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war fighting doctrine laid down by Mohammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered. William Gawthrop, "The Sources and Patterns of Terrorism in Islamic Law," The Vanguard: Journal of the Military Intelligence Corps Association 11:4 (Fall 2006), p. 10 (pp. 9-14)

That is not encouraging news. But one reason why this is such a neglected area of study can be attributed to the difficulty in finding many original sources in English. Add to this the difficulty in getting ahold of a copy of either of these volumes by Malik (the Concept of War I purchased from a bookstore in India; the Concept of Power an associate had to obtain through inter-library loan from one of the few US libraries that owns a copy), and anyone looking to engage in serious study of the topic will face significant obstacles. But by making these volumes available online, we hope to provoke further study in this area.

To that end, I have also uploaded some additional resources. The first is a radio interview with my friend and colleague LTC Joe Myers, who spoke on the importance of The Quranic Concept of War on The Right Balance program. That audio file (mp3) can be downloaded here. LTC Myers' review article of that same title was in the previous issue of Parameters, the Army War College Quarterly [html] [pdf], and is essential reading. And for convenience sake, William Gawthrop's excellent article cited above, "The Sources and Patterns of Terrorism in Islamic Law", can be downloaded from our website as well.