Take Up the Cross and Follow Him

Matthew 16:24-25 New King James Version (NKJV)

24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.



Saturday, August 31, 2013

Sermon - Christian Patriot - Boston, 1840

Rev. Mellish Irving Motte (1801-1881) was originally from Charleston, South Carolina. He obtained a Bachelors of Arts from Harvard in 1821 and became pastor of the South Congregational Church in Boston on May 21, 1828. In this 1840 sermon, Rev. Motte encourages Christians to fully engage the culture, especially in the political arena. He decries politicians acting out of self-interest and greed rather than making decisions based upon what is morally right and wrong. Motte insists that religious morality is the very first manifestation of true patriotism and "Public virtue is the strongest spirit of national vitality." He reminds his listeners that nations must be judged in the present since they do not exist in eternity and national ruin awaits national unrighteousness. Rev. Motte states that America's Fathers founded the country on Christian principles and intended for the United States to be a Christian nation. According to Motte, the realization of this goal is to be found in individual piety and allegiance to righteousness over any political party.




The Christian Patriot
A
Sermon
Delivered at the
South Congregational Church,
Boston, July 5, 1840

By M. I. Motte

Psalm 144:15
Happy is that people, whose God is the Lord

One of the most common of mistaken and false forms, into which religion is apt to run, is an isolated piety, and abstract and independent devotion; religion separated from the business of life, instead of being woven up, conscientiously, with all its concerns. For convenience' sake, we have a particular day, and place, and order of men, and class of exercises, especially devoted to the consideration of the great topic; but it is that its influence may be made to run through all days and places, all intercourse, every subject and employment. Yet the church has every been prone, even more than it conscious of, to sever itself from the world, instead of leavening it to its own spirit; and the same man, in his church relations, is a Christian, or would grieve not to be considered and to consider himself so, who, in some of his worldly interests and pursuits, is absolutely an atheist, living without God in his thoughts.

On no subject us thus more obvious, than on the one, from which it is most unfortunate in our country religion should be driven off, seeing it is that which agitates more people here than any other, viz. the whole business of politics. Religion and politics are spoken of as opposite poles, the positive and the negative as the acknowledgment of God is concerned. We hear it said, politics are of no particular religion; and it is too often true, in a more absolute sense than is intended. It would seem, at first, as if both subject were so important, so exciting, that the human hear is hardly large enough for both. (3) When we speak of a man as a politician preeminently, one enthusiastically absorbed in the affairs of the nation, or more probably of a party, we do not expect to find him in a church. And when a zealot for churches is invited to the polls, he seems to answer to the purpose, when he replies, "My Master's kingdom is not of this world." If he is a clergyman, the professional response expected from him is, "I have nothing to do with politics;" and only those object to this, who suppose, if he voted at all, he would vote with them; to all others he seems to have made the natural and legitimate reply. Both of these men are wrong, but they both point the direction in which public prejudice blows.

Our festivals, again, are either political or religious; not both together. There would seem to be something incompatible and profane, or absurd, in making them both. Such an anniversary as yesterday is not strikingly a religious day; as tomorrow's published list of its outrages and truculent mishaps in all our cities will attest. Early in the morning, trains may be seen leaving the city by every outlet, anxious to escape the celebration of the National Independence. And, when the day of the month falls upon the first day of the week, its celebration is postponed till Monday; as if confessedly impossible to bring its spirit to into harmony with the Christian Sabbath.

All this shows, not the politics and religion are necessarily inconsistent, - for the former, I suppose, is a duty as really as the latter, and all duties should be performed in the fear of God, - but it shows, that the spirit of politics which prevails is not the right one. The good of our country should be provided for, as in the sight of God, and in sacred love to our fellow-men; and then it is a holy service, and need not be dissevered from the solemnest ministrations of devotions. It is one of the modes of worship with which the Universal Father is well pleased; one of the forms of his appointed ceremonial of religion pure and undefiled, which consists in going about doing good for his sake. But, if it is only a selfish, headlong, intemperate scramble for preeminence, if it is mercenary, not moral, in its spirit, a question of interest, not of right, the Sabbath is too good a day for it, and so is every other day.

Interest is to be regarded as well as right; but do not all political parties appeal too exclusively to the former? A reverence for right is not held high enough, as the guiding polar star for the opinions of the people. The people think, morality is a matter of home and neighborly intercourse, not involved in the vote they cast, and the opinions they express, on the acts of government, encouraging or condemning. How seldom is the guilt of upholding iniquitous public measures reflected on, as good men reflect on private violations of the ten Commandments. They may do infinitely more mischief than an individual's misdemeanor, and yet many deem it a little thing. Men seem to think they may hold what opinions, and belong to what parties they please, without regard to their truth or effects, except as affecting themselves; as if politics were a lawless region, always out of Christendom, and from which even conscious was excluded by general consent. Look through the community and the world, and see how, on almost every question, you may draw a line between parties, accurately coinciding with the line between their interests. You need not ask, on which side a man's convictions lie, if you only know on which side his wishes lie. The coincidence is certainly remarkable; and melancholy it is to reflect on the wide heartlessness it indicates. Here we see men fair-minded in every other concern, men of severe religious sanctity, of nice honor, of scrupulous integrity in their personal transactions, where the welfare of a few immediate connections or acquaintances is at stake; but, when millions lose though the prevalence of an opinion, the first and only thought that seems to occur to them is, How will it affect us, and I our lowest interests? And, if it promise to be lucrative, forthwith they adopt that opinion, and if their soul's salvation hung upon it.

They adopt that opinion, I said; But can it be possible, that men always do really believe as if for their interests? Can they be conscientious, in such innumerable cases, arriving, through the careful and dispassionate examination, at precisely the result that happens to favor the views and wishes? I allow a great deal for the blinding power of self-interest; but this uniform concurrence of hope and belief is astonishing still. These same people will reason as clearly as daylight on any argument which comes within the tenth of an inch of their own concerns without touching it; but, the moment it touches, their light is darkened, their logical acumen is blunted, their perceptions evince a certain unfortunate obliquity, which is sure to twist their notions in one invariable direction. Can this be right? Can it be honest? We know, or we might know, if we chose, that truth and justice cannot always, and on every accidental question and measure, be in our favor. We are bound, at any rate, not to take it for granted. Let us inquire. Let us make up our minds to lose so many dollars, relinquish a few prejudices, and partialities, and expectations, rather than lose probity, the approbation that speaks within, all generosity of soul, and the smiles of God. Let us not be satisfied to be guilty, because the guilt is shared with a multitude. Away with injustice and ungenerosity, though only in thought, however popular, however fashionable. So shall we do our part to bring into currency a more elevated and uncompromising tone of political honor and conscience; and the whole regions of politics be no longer but as the Barbary States of moral geography, outlawed lands and piratical seas, from which are excluded all faith and virtue, all laws of God and man.

Politics should be but one form of that charity which is the end of the divine law. One more of benevolence, one of the ministrations of philanthropy; and "Holiness to the Lord" be inscribed over the portals of its halls of state and the chambers of its social festivals, as over the church door. Especially with us should this be aimed at on triple grounds. For, if political parties with us cannot be Christian parties, then are we a godless nation; there can be few Christians throughout the length and breadth of the land; since he, who is no politician under our institutions, is a solitary rarity.

Then, if they believe their own declamations, puffing up so unweariedly the national vanity, we are the most favored people on which the sun shines, at least, as regards all that God has done for us; and the Giver of all good should, least of all, be ungratefully overlooked by us. All the flights of rhetoric, that yesterday glittered over this continent, all the floods of panegyric that were sounded forth upon ourselves and our institutions and advantages, should they not all reecho, at least in and undertone whisper in reason's ear, as if saying, To whom much is given, of them much will be required?

And, then, to make all that is given to us safe for us, and to expect a blessing continuance, we must remember God, and insist on a religious morality as the very first manifestation of a true patriotism. Ay, patriotism, that most abused words. Alas! That it is every vaunted and bravadoed by the scoffer and the profligate, not knowing, that blessed is that people, and that alone, whose God is the Lord. Without him they may speak great swelling words of vanity; but bombastic professions and oratorical displays are not the disinterested self-denial and sober toils of a virtuous citizen, who fears God and honors government, and serves and saves the state without boasting. He alone is a patriot. By such alone the country stands.

The Ruler of nations hath uttered the decree. From beginning of time his world has illustrating it. As surely as he is just and the King of nations as of individuals; as surely as there is truth taught by experience, and the unvarying certainty of the same effects from the same causes, according to the natural constitution he has impressed on his universe, the past, in all quarters of the globe, bids us look well to it. You may be the traitor within the garrison, though treason to the country be furthest from your thoughts. You may invoke ruin upon it when you are shouting, louder than any, the glory of its institutions. You may be the deadly enemy, though you shed your blood for it. Look into the nature of things. When hath a righteous nation perished? Where is there one doing justice and judgment, and it is not well with it? Public virtue is the strongest spirit of national vitality; and private virtue is the life-blood, coursing through every artery and vein, large and small, of the public institutions.

On the other hand, is it not undeniable from reason, scripture, and experience, that predominance of selfish principles and corrupt morals is the unfailing cause of calamities, perplexities, and ruin in a country? Reason tells us, that the character of the Judge of all the earth is the pledged to have it so. Vice, in the individual, may not always meet its retribution, nor virtue its reward, in this world, because there is to be another, of more perfect retribution for individuals. But nations exist here alone. Unlike the soul, they are annihilated at their temporal dissolution. Therefore, if their fortunes and fate be subject of the Divine Providence, to their present existence, which is the only one, must be applied the principle of its moral rule.

The scriptures confirm this rule, and do not restrict it to the theocracy of Israel. They say; "O Israel, thou hast fallen by thine iniquity; your iniquities have turned away good things and withheld them from you." But it is not of Israel alone, (of whom it might be said, God was, in a peculiar way, a Governor by temporal sanctions,) that he announces this principle of legislation. His declarations are general. "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build up and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them. In the hand of the Lord, there is a cup, and the wine is red. It is full mixed, and he poureth out of the same. As for the dregs thereof, all the ungodly of the earth shall drink them."

And the experience of mankind puts the impressive truth beyond dispute. What is history but, on this account, like the Prophet's, a scroll written, within and without, with lamentation, and mourning, and woe. Pity weeps as she unrolls its venerable annals. Its oldest records present the Cities of the Plain set forth for an example of the national ruin, that full surely awaits national unrighteousness. "Ten righteous men could not be found in them," and they perished. Even to an earlier page the genius of history points, and sighs over the ravages of the flood. "All flesh had corrupted their ways before the Flood." And we stand aghast at the sweeping catastrophe. Turn over a few pages onward, and direct your attention to the chosen people. See them, at one time, visited with pestilence, famine, conflagration, tempest; at another, falling under the sword, or languishing in captivity, feeling before the scourge of war, or terrified with awful phenomena of nature, and all these proclaimed the retributory angels of the Lord, the ministers of his justice for their sins. The wisdom of their wise men was taken away, and the understanding of their prudent men hid; and it was moral debasement that did it. Their cities, the places of their fathers' sepulchers, were laid waste, and the gates thereof consumed with fire; and, in all the seasons of their affliction, mark the moral shade running though the history in proportioned intenseness; mark idolatry and its bitter fruit, general profligacy, tempting them to forget their God.

Read of a later day, travel among the scenes of profane chronicles, if you would see, that national vice is national suicide. Stand upon the moldering ruins of a thousand cities, once great and fair, and seek, - you will seek in vain, - for trace or even site of many others; and ask where are they, and why have they vanished from the earth? Roam through the desolated territories of empires, once splendid and mighty, and, as you brood over the gloomy vestiges of their decay, cannot find an inhabitant for many a mile, where throngs were loud and busy once, ask yourself, if integrity, industry, humanity, temperance, piety, and purity were rife there, when the besom of destruction came to sweep a tomb under those wide-spread ruins.

Thus history or travel will conduct you over the globe, and everywhere teach the same salutary lesson. They will point to empire after empire, and dynasty after dynasty, shriveling and shrinking with the imbecility of moral corruption; and it is not more sure, that the palaces of their pride, and the monuments of their perverted might, are crumbling into dust, than that other empires and other dynasties, now treading in their steps, will follow them to decay and desolation. O that our beloved land may be wise from the lesson! And the lesson is more pertinent under our republican polity, than under any other. If righteousness exalteth a nation, and sin is a reproach and ruin to any people, most speedily of all must it prove so to a people without the restraints of a strong government. Liberty and licentiousness roll trippingly off the tongue together; they flow, unseparated, from the lips of many, with easy alliteration and commonplace proverbialness, as if they were almost the same thing, or one inevitably followed the other. But, if it does, it is as commonplace a maxim of history, that it will follow it speedily to ruin. Liberty licentiousness, - it is the tritest of proverbs, - cannot coexist lastingly. The free people is the last that can afford to be vicious. The slave may throw off the restraints of virtue, and yet be kept in order by the restraints of despotism. But, when a freeman does not govern himself, he is ungoverned, so to speak, and careering to perdition; like the uncurbed wild ass of the desert, rushing to the precipice he tosses his head too high to see.

Therefore, every immoral republican is a traitor and conspirator against his government, as much as if, being the subject of a king, he pointed a dagger against his life. He is spreading stratagems and snares for the feet of his sovereign; for public virtue is his sovereign. He is seeking to blind, and deafen, and lame, and cripple, and make wholly inefficient, and worse than inefficient, he is seeking to corrupt, into tyrannical wantonness and cruelty, the most beneficent monarch that ever sat upon a throne.

So that you see, my brethren, in addition to every other motive for being good Christians, patriotism should be one. After we have turned away from the voice of God; after we have steeled our hearts to the claims of him who died upon Calvary, the just for the unjust, the he might bring us to God; after we have besotted our minds to act the fool's part of blindness to our own interest; there is yet one appeal which may not be lost upon our generosity, one consideration that should be sufficient; public spirit, the love of our country. Its welfare is resting on our individual virtue. For as drops of water make up the ocean, and grains of sand constitute vast continents, so the personal character of the humblest individual among us adds something, for weal or for woe, to that national character, by which the land of our love, the government which has cherished us, will stand or fall. Our native soil, the scene of our happy childhood, the land of our fathers, the land where we have enjoyed so much, where we expect so much, and from which the world expects so much, shall it realize these expectations? Shall it become, as has been so fondly anticipated, the glory of the nations, has the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth, showing what man can do with unshackled energies and faculties ripely developed in the wholesome air of liberty? Or shall it be one more byword and mockery of the aspirations and pretensions of freedom.

Think of this, when tempted to any wicked or base act. Above all, think of it when tempted to into any of the peculiar and besetting snares, and betraying exaggerations and caricatures of liberty; to vicious license, to lawlessness and recklessness of restraint, to inebriate zeal, party prejudice, bigoted factiousness, mob-rioting, passionate reviling of the powers that be, or the powers that are to be, and all bitter or mercenary partisanship. Remember, when tempted to any of these, you are tempted then to disappoint so many noble souls, the lovers of their kind, in every quarter of the globe, the enthusiasts for the advancement of the human race to a pitch of excellence and enjoyment yet unrealized, but the guaranty for which they look for in the great experience of self-government now trying on these shores.

The old world may be said to be leaning, with feverish anxiety, over the ocean to catch every symptom of the success or failure of his experiment. Have pity on the last hopes on man. Let is not be said again, as it was by the dying Brutus, after he had sacrificed all to realize a patriot's dream; "O virtue, I have worshipped thee as a reality, and found thee but a shadow." Let it not be said, again, as it was by the noble-hearted Madame Roland, as, on her way to the guillotine to lose her head for continuing a virtuous enthusiast for freedom amidst the herd of vicious, she passed under the statue of Liberty; "O Liberty, how they have played thee! What crimes have been committed in the name!" Ay, how it has been played in the world, historionized, juggled! What crimes have been committed, what crimes have not been committed, in its sacred name? It is assuredly the cloak of boundless evil, when not guarded with most scrupulous probity; for the best things, corrupted, always become the worst. The precious diamond may be blackened into a worthless coal. The sweet name of liberty has become a sound of ill omen and nauseous associations to many of the readers of history, from want of virtue in its votaries. Patriotism has been characterized as the last resource of a villain. Revolutions, said Napoleon, are not made with rosewater; but it were well if blood, and seas of it, were the dearest price paid. Moral corruption is what renders revolutions worse than vain.

Our fathers have made one more trial, knowing that past failures were from want of Christian principle, and that they had settled these shores expressly in obedience to Christian principle, and therefore they might hope. In faith and prayer they struggled; for they felt, that with God all things are possible in the cause of righteousness, and they hoped their children would feel this too. From the first, they set out with the idea of making this community that happy people, whose God is the Lord, - a Christian nation, - what the world had never yet seen, but what all its experience concurred in testifying it must seem or it would never see the amount of prosperity man is capable of attaining on earth. A Christian people! Not merely a sober, industrious people, without religion, if such could be expected, but distinctively a Christian people. Bright and glorious idea, far-seeing wisdom, true friends, and see its kingdoms prospering at this time just in proportion as they come near realizing this idea, other elements of their greatness being the same. Begin from the effete East, and come to the infant West. The nominally Christian are more thriving than the Pagan Mahometan; the Protestant than the Catholic; the praying and Bible-reading, than the ceremonial and formalist; and, so long hypocrisy could be kept out, that people would prosper most, who should require, as the settlers of these New England colonies did, that none but members of the church should be rulers in the state. Such a regulation is a bait for hypocrites, a trap for the consciences of the ambitious, and, therefore, it is not to be enforced after the primitive virtues of the settlement have been corrupted. But, is there were not fear of hypocrisy, verily and indeed happy would be that people, with whom God was effectively their Lord through the strict observances of such a rule. Then might we see such a phenomenon as a Christian people.

As it is, let us, - and it seems more incumbent on us than on any nation that lives in the sun's more expressive, than as a mere geographical term. When we are called a Christian nation, let us allow more the meant, than that we are not savages or barbarians, or only semi-civilized, as all those nations are in which Christianity is unknown. Christian should be more than European or American, as distinguished from Asiatic or African. It should be more than latitude and longitude; more than eastern or western, northern or southern; more than tropics and zones, equator and ecliptic, arctic or antarctic.

And how can we make a Christian nation? To become so, must be an individual, not a collective act. Legislation cannot do it, if legislation would. Resolves of majorities, in caucus or in Congress, in towns or by states, or even unanimous votes, is not the way to affect it. The simple and sole process is for each person privately to resolve, for his single part, no influence in legislative deliberations, no political name or fame whatever, - nay, the shrinking woman and child, whose deliberations look not beyond the homestead, or who can legislate only over their own hearts, - these can add a stone, as truly as the mightiest statesman or the loudest demagogue, to build up the national temple to the Lord. Public opinion is the life-breath of our own government, and therefore to Christianize that, we have but to Christianize ourselves. O what it is ye may achieve! No such power as this is possessed by the subjects of any government but yours. They cannot regenerate their sovereign. They cannot even pray for his conversion with hope, the assurance, of the prayer being granted if sincere, which may warm your breasts.

And is there a consideration of earth or heaven, that is not present and potent to move us to this prayer? Pour it out to God, if righteousness would have but the promise of the life that now is. If a majority of the citizens were sincere followers of Jesus Christ, is it not evident, the councils of this nation would be wiser and mightier, its progress more glorious, its dominion even more potent than any the world has ever seen? The day when it shall be resolved, that the same evangelical principles shall govern states that govern churches and gospel professors in their private relations, would be the true jubilee of freedom. That will be the mind's and the soul's declaration of independence. That will be breaking every yoke at length from body, and heart, and spirit. Thenceforth slavery, in any form, would be but a tradition and a name; whereas now it is the commonest of conditions, and to the mass liberty is but a name; for he that serveth any sin is the slave of sin. That day will come, when the people choose.

Choose it, resolve it, O my brethren, as the first of civil duties. Whatever your party predilections, sacrifice them all for the party of righteous men. Support no administration, and oppose none, but one the ground of moral principle. Go with them as far as Jesus Christ would go, and no further. Read the constitution by the light of the Gospel. The Savior be your paramount leader.

And now I see his communion table before me this day, and I fear all that has been said will seem out of keeping with its solemn associations; so desecrating, as I began with intimating, seems any allusion to the politician's trade. But let me hope I have not spoken all in vain. Follow it in the spirit in which you come here to the house of the Lord himself. You are performing a solemn act of worship then, if you feel it aright. You should enter upon office, you should deposit your vote for office, with a religious sense of accountableness, like that which makes you so serious when you handle the emblems of the Savior's body and blood.

Approach his table because you would be good citizens, among the other reasons of the act; because you love, and you serve and save, your country; because you would have it long free; because you would be truly free yourselves. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. If his Son shall make your free, ye shall be free indeed. Where he is not the deliverer, men may clamor, and boast, and carouse, and with bacchanalian revelry call themselves free but they are the bondmen of corruption, the thralls of Satan. O be ye, unlike them, the freedmen of the Lord, whose service is perfect freedom.

The Million Muslim March and Its Foreign Islamist Ties

Posted By Ryan Mauro On August 29, 2013

The 9/11 Truther organizers of the “Million American March Against Fear on 9/11,” formerly known as the “Million Muslim March,” aren’t keen on those who dig up their alliances with foreign Islamist groups like Viva Palestina in the U.K. and Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh. In a recent conference call, one of the organizers even attacked me as a “Nazi bulldog.”
The American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) leads the “Million American March Against Fear on 9/11.” Its website claims that “’Al-Qaeda is a joke. And so is the whole ‘war on terror’” and “the so-called ‘Islamic terrorist threat’ is pure hallucination.” Formerly known as the “Million Muslim March,” the event’s name was rebranded after 9/11 Truth groups joined it.
AMPAC is based in Missouri and is led by MD Rabbi Alam, who has suggested that Jews were responsible for 9/11. He also leads the Missouri Democratic Party Asian American Caucus and received significant attention when the Missouri Right to Life PAC endorsed his bid to become Secretary of State.
On August 22, the Clarion Project published an expose of how Alam and the leadership of his Missouri Democratic Party Asian American Caucus are linked to the pro-Hamas Viva Palestina group. Viva Palestina is led by anti-American politician George Galloway and is facing a second investigation by the British government for failing to disclose its finances.
“[T]he Viva Palestina campaign is more about supporting and legitimizing Hamas than it is about providing aid to the needy…They treat Hamas leaders as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people and provide both material and political support to the terrorist organization,” writes the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
Alam also organized a “Million Muslim March” in his home country of Bangladesh to protest “violence against Islam.” The enemy of Islam he is referring to is Bangladesh’s popularly-elected secular government and the group he is defending is Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamist group with leaders that are on trial for war crimes.
In February, there were massive demonstrations demanding action against the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami group that wants to implement Shariah Law. The protests began after a Jamat-e-Islami leader was sentenced to life in prison, eliciting a smile and victory hand signal from the convicted war criminal. The Islamist group has responded with protests of its own; a campaign that Alam is contributing to. The group was recently prohibited from taking part in elections by a Bangladeshi court.
On August 24, two days after the Clarion Project article was posted, the Million American March Against Fear organizers had a conference call that was posted on its website.
“I’m gonna say this, with like, overwhelming concern. There’s this story on a website called the Clarion Project,” says one speaker at about 24 minutes in.
“There’s definitely, without question, when it gets to a level like that, where Ryan Mauro, the guy who wrote that story, he’s another Nazi bulldog, and they are trying to call out, like, the highest order against us here,” he then says.
The march organizers are particularly incensed with devout Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, whose American Islamic Forum for Democracy condemned the event. Alam’s group responded ferociously, calling him a “house Muslim” that is the “least popular Muslim in America” that is despised by almost every Muslim-American.
Actually, Alam and his group are the unpopular ones. The event’s Facebook page has 130 “likes” and his organization’s Facebook page has 126. Jasser’s group has almost 1,500 “likes,” so the supposed “least popular Muslim in America” has ten times more support than Alam.
Many of the march’s original supporters have run away since it started getting negative attention. A screenshot from August 18 lists the American Muslim Task Force; Hussam Ayloush, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations chapter in Los Angeles and Imam Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society as endorsers. These three groups no longer appear on the website.
One of the objectives of the rally is to unite Muslims and non-Muslims behind the idea that the U.S. government is essentially evil; that the U.S. government would murder 3,000 of its own citizens just to have a pretext to murder and persecute innocent Muslims around the world.
That’s where Dr. Kevin Barrett, the Director of Media and Outreach for the march comes in. He is the founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth. It has a small number of endorsements from writers, theology professors and ministers. It promotes a Day of Prayer for 9/11 Truth and has instructions on how to influence clergy.
The Million American March Against Fear on 9/11 will begin at noon at the National Mall and then move to Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House. At 2 PM, the rally will merge with the March Against Drones. More specific details about the route are available at the website.
There are few things more offensive than a march on 9/11 that’s designed to shift attention away from Al-Qaeda’s victims to “Islamophobia,” so-called American “imperialism” and 9/11 conspiracy theories. The refusal of CAIR, MAS, ISNA and others to rally behind the event shows there are some lines that even the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood knows not to cross.
This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Islamic Teaching: Non-Muslims Equal to Dogs

Among those familiar with the true teachings of Islam, it is well known that the life — or as articulated in Arabic, the “blood” — of an infidel, that is, a non-Muslim, is not equal to the life/blood of a Muslim. Few know, however, that among some of Islam’s respected hadith collections, the blood of a non-Muslim is no better than the blood of a dog.
(Dog-lovers should bear in mind that, in Islam, to be compared to a dog is about the worst and most degrading insult.)
Brother Rashid (a former Muslim turned Christian) recently discussed this during his Arabic-language show, Su’al Jari’ (“Daring Question,” which I recently appeared on to discuss my book, Crucified Again).
According to a hadith recorded among other places in Sunan Ahmed (Hanbali jurisprudence) and Sunan al-Bayhaqi (Shafi’i jurisprudence), during the course of a discussion about non-Muslims, Caliph Omar al-Khattab — one of Sunni Islam’s “four righteous caliphs” — declared “They are heathens, and the blood of one of them is [like] the blood of a dog.”

How to Reverse Weird Feelings About Christianity

August 30, 2013|12:55 pm
When it comes to Christianity, many people never get out of the starting gate. They get stuck at a place where they perceive Christianity and/or Christians as being "too weird" for their liking. It is such a common error that it isn't even surprising to see it when it happens. There has got to be a way around this roadblock, isn't there?
Yes indeed. Try starting with this thought. Jesus has never ever had a weird feeling about His message. Now hit the pause button. And just meditate on that thought for at least 20 seconds.
OK. So if Jesus has never had a weird feeling about His message, perhaps the problem lies on our end. Perhaps our "wiring" is somewhat discombobulated. And perhaps those Christians who seem weird to me are not really my main issue with Christianity. Maybe it is just as easy out for me, and a way to avoid coming face to face with the founder of this faith. Maybe I feel better about saying "no" to the "weirdos" than to the One who claims to be God, and the Savior of the world.
Maybe, just maybe, I have fallen into a pit which I allowed myself to fall into. After all, there are millions upon millions of Christians that I have never met. And I bet some of them may not seem very weird to me. I guess that makes sense.
What if I seem more "weird" to Jesus than those "weird Christians" seem to me? Ouch. Then what? Is it me? Am I the one? Am I the problem? Am I the one who has at least as many issues as the weirdos? No. It couldn't be. I am normal, and not like those religious extremists. I will never be one of those "fundamentalists."
Or has this obsession with those "crazy Christians" been nothing but an excuse for me? A way to avoid confronting my own sinfulness, and my own fear of death. I know that when they look crazy to me, I feel better about myself, and better about my lack of interest in Jesus Himself.
So yeah. I guess I need those weirdos to do their thing. It actually helps me to feel better about what I do. And most of all, it gives me something to focus on rather than the thought that God might just be commanding me to repent of my sin. If I consider that possibility, I might even end up contemplating the thought that Jesus truly does love me, and that He offers the free gift of eternal life to every sinner who comes to Him in repentance and faith. That gets very close to home. Uff da.
Wow. That is deep man. I think I prefer to keep it on the surface level. I'm not so sure I want to reverse my weird feelings about Christians and Christianity. I kind of hope they continue to seem as weird to me as they usually do. I guess I better keep looking for those examples to help me prop up my personal agenda. Heaven forbid that I ever meet a "normal" Christian. Then what would I do?
Come to think of it, I wonder what kind of Christian I would be? Wait a minute. Is it possible that if I was in that situation, I would start to seem weird to some people who don't believe? Now that's a trip. Me being a Christian. What would that look like? How would that be perceived by others?
Hmm. Why am I so worried about what others would think? It's interesting that my mind goes to them rather than to the founder of this faith and to what He would think about me. Maybe that's the point. Maybe I really am scared to death to come face to face with Him. You know I bet that's it. I am pretty sure that is my hang-up. It's not the weirdos. It's my weird feelings about how I would respond to Him should He cross my path. That would be pretty freaky I guess.
Or would it? What would make it freaky? Him, or my feelings of awkwardness? Perhaps my feelings of guilt or shame? Or maybe my feelings of anger and doubt? I don't like this. It goes to the core of my being in a way that no other religion or religious prophet seems to do. Maybe that is why those "crazy Christians" are a much bigger target in my mind that those "crazy" whatever from any other religion. Now that's an interesting thought. I think I will ponder that one awhile.
So you're saying there really is a way to reverse my weird feelings about Christianity and Christians? I am interested in learning more. Let me see if I can find some time in my day planner for a little visit with that "founder" guy. I think I need to see what He is about before I waste anymore time focusing on my perceptions of people I know very little about.
Dan Delzell is the pastor of Wellspring Lutheran Church in Papillion, Neb

Egyptian Christians' 'Radical' Response to Islamists

MINYA, Egypt -- The city of Minya sits at the epicenter of the persecution against the Christian Church in Egypt.
During the past several weeks, Christians have suffered the worst attacks in centuries.
Radical Islam spurred the violence, but the onslaught is being met with the love of Christ.
Worst Violence in Centuries
The Amir Tadros Church in Minya is just one of dozens of churches that have been burned down throughout the country.
The interior of the century-old church was completely destroyed.
One expert told CBN News the violence against Christian churches in Egypt is the worst in nearly 700 years.
Exclusive video shows that the inside of the sanctuary is completely gutted and the altar destroyed.
Now the church is holding its services at 6:30 a.m., using a makeshift altar erected outside. Engineers say the church would need to be torn down before it could be rebuilt.
"To be sure that everything is burned, they put fire in every place," Ezzrat, a U.N. human rights officer, said.

"Before this time they make a sign for Christian places or cars or houses or buildings. And if the place has an X on it, they burned the place," he explained. "And that shows that they planned this before."
Loving Your Enemies
The churches weren't the only targets. Cars, schools, and businesses owned by Christians were also destroyed. Muslim radicals marked Christian businesses with a black X before torching them.
Perhaps most shocking was the destruction of a Christian orphanage.
Muslim mobs attacked and destroyed a Coptic Christian orphanage called Christ Soldiers, leaving about 200 children without shelter.
The Christians who run the orphanage left a message for the attackers on the building's exterior wall: "You meant to hurt us, but we forgive you. God is love. Everything works out for good."
They also wrote, "Love your enemies."
Evangelical ministries bore the brunt of many of the attacks. There's not much left of the Bible Society of Egypt's bookstore in Minya. Their store in nearby Azuit was also destroyed.
Those bookstores used to look like the Bible Society's main bookstore in Cairo. Now the Bibles, books, and children's materials are in shambles.
"For the last 130 years we have been operating," Bible Society of Egypt Vice President Ehad Tanas told CBN News. "We have bookshops in the streets and the main cities in Cairo and Alexandria, Tantur, Upper Egypt and it [the destruction] has never happened before in the history of the Bible Society."
According to one Egyptian website, angry mobs attacked more than 60 churches from Minya to Alexandria to Giza and Suez and throughout Egypt.
Muslim Brotherhood vs. Christians
The rampage began after Muslim Brotherhood supporters targeted the churches as scapegoats for the army's decision to break up two Brotherhood protest camps in Cairo.
They also blamed the church for allegedly participating in the ouster of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi.
Yet Christians point out many of their Muslim neighbors defended and protected them.
They don't see this as a Muslim against Christian issue, but as the Muslim Brotherhood against the Christians. And even though they've been targeted, they're responding with forgiveness and pressing on in the face of persecution.
A Sunday school class at the Amir Tadros Church now meets in an alcove off the main building. They're learning about the namesake of the church, who was a Christian martyr. It's not your typical Sunday school lesson.
"This day I think the children have a life experience," Sunday school teacher Marka William told CBN News. "They see their church burned. They see how they are treated all the day. They see us forgive our enemies."
"We respond as every other Christian has responded," Tanas said. "We are in Egypt to serve. We are in Egypt to demonstrate the Christian love. We do every effort to be self-restrained and to show the Christian love that the Lord has taught us to show."
'Pray for Us'
The churches are asking for prayer and support from the Church worldwide.
"They can pray for us all the time [and] ask Jesus to save us," William said.
"What happens in Egypt affects the Middle East, so we ask them to pray for the country," Tanas said. "We ask them to pray for Christians. We ask them to pray for the Middle East."
"We also ask them to pray for the government, the existing government that the Lord will give them wisdom and guidance in every decision they make," he added.
While living under threats, they vow to continue their ministries. They say the buildings have been destroyed, but the Church goes on and their faith remains in Jesus Christ who promised He would build His church.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

THE SPANISH MILITARY ORDERS

©Guy Stair Sainty
The crusade to drive the Moors from Spain, four hundred years of almost constant warfare interspersed with skirmishes and short periods of armed peace, was not only the longest of all European wars but was the only crusade to achieve its objective. The role played by the knights of the Military Orders was a crucial one; their monastic structure, the harsh discipline and the devotion of the knights to the cause of liberating their nation from the invader, gave them an unmatched strength of purpose. By granting key strategic fortresses to the knights, the Iberian Kings of Castille, Aragón, León and Portugal were able to establish border outposts in newly conquered territories whose boundaries were continually pushing back the areas controlled by the Moors. With the success of the Reconquista and the expulion of the Moors, the four Orders lost their independence from secular authorities when they were put under the "perpetual administration" of the Spanish Crown. They then found a new role as an elite corps of the nobility, maintaining their castles and estates as commanderies to provide incomes for those who had distinguished themselves in the service of the Monarch. With the loss of their estates in the nineteenth century their role became purely honorary and the Republic attempted to suppress them entirely, although this was contrary to Canon Law under which they were regulated as Religious-Military Orders founded by Papal Bull. Restored under the present Monarchy, they have been maintained as exclusively Catholic, Noble Orders dependent on the Crown.
They had their origin in the small, local military confraternities founded for self-protection by members of the knightly class. The Moors had conquered almost all of the Iberian peninsular within five years of invading in the year 711 a.d. The Christians, however, advancing gradually southwards, fortifying the small towns in which they settled, steadily regained their lost territories. By the end of the eleventh century northern Spain was divided into a number of small states, León, Castille, Navarre, Aragón, Galicia and Portugal, frequently at odds with each other but united by their religion and the continual concern over a revived threat from the Moorish states to the south.
Although the Moors were relatively tolerant of religious minorities living within their dominions, indeed there was considerable intermarriage between the different communities, Christian, Jewish and Moor, they saw the expanding Christian communities on their borders as ready victims for plunder. The Moorish Kingdom based at Córdoba was itself divided by factionalism and its break-up into smaller taifas (city states) gave the Christian confraternities their chance to consolidate their power and firmly establish themselves in the territories they had captured during two centuries of protracted struggle. [1] By the end of the eleventh century the Christian Kingdoms enjoyed an uneasy truce with the Moors, interspersed with occasional hostilities, but this was disrupted by the appearance of a fanatic Berber sect, the Almohads, in the early twelfth century.
The Almohads, led by Abd al-Moumin, invaded Andalucia in 1147, uniting the Moorish principalities under their rule and menacing the Christian states. The Spanish Christians were forced to put aside their internal conflicts and, with the help of the Templars, who had established themselves in a number of border fortresses, united to defeat this new threat to their security. The example of the Templars, a highly disciplined military confraternity dedicated exclusively to the defense of the Church, proved to be the model which would be followed by the native Spanish Orders. Some of the original defensive fraternities formed in the outlying towns provided the nucleus for the Orders of Chivalry, while others, more modest, later became Maestranzas or Noble Associations, some of which have survived to the present day. The Templars themselves were in gradual retreat in Spain as the local magnates preferred to endow the newly former military Orders rather than further add to the strength of the threateningly powerful Templar Order.
The first Order to be founded, but the second to receive Papal approval, was the Order of Calatrava. The earlier recognition, however, granted to the Order of Santiago by the Holy See, gave the latter precedence before the other three. Santiago was also far more extensively endowed than the other Orders (in the eighteenth century the value of its benefices totaled 40% of the combined value of those of all four Orders together). Once the mission of driving the Moors from Spain was accomplished, the four Orders, like the great crusader Orders elsewhere in Europe, were perceived as over-mighty subjects and it became a priority for the Crown to gain control over them - particularly as the not infrequent quarrels between the rival bodies was a source of dissension at a time when the Crown was struggling to establish its central authority.
The Spanish Kings had frequently obtained the election of close connections of their families as Masters of the Orders and at Calatrava in 1489, Santiago in 1494 and Alcántarain 1495 the administration of the three Magisteries were ultimately granted to King Ferdinand of Aragón, as Sovereign of Aragón and King-Consort of Castille. Finally, by the Bull Dum intra of Pope Adrian VI dated 4 May 1523, the `perpetual administration' of the three Orders was transferred to Charles I (the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V), King of Spain, and his heirs and successors, with the provision that this dignity could be exercised by a future female Sovereign.
The much smaller Order of Montesa was not perceived as such a threat as the other three and it was not until a Bull of Sixtus V, of 15 March 1587, that its perpetual administration was eventually transferred to the Crown of Aragón. By a further Bull of 22 May 1739 (at the request of Philip V) its council was united with that of the other three Orders. The Orders were administered by a `Council and Tribunal' appointed in 1523, but each of the four retained their independent structure, their own statutes, and requirements for noble proofs and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The exemption from the control of local ordinaries was preserved in the Bull of 1523 and in subsequent Papal dispositions concerning the four Orders, until the first Spanish Republic. By the mid-sixteenth century the Tribunal had authority over two cities, two hundred and twenty small towns and seventy-five villages. Membership of the Council included the Secretary of the Orders, the Treasurer of the Orders (Contador Mayor), the Grand-Usher, three (later four with Montesa) Procurator-Generals, three (later four) fiscals (who inspected noble proofs) and a Treasurer of the Council. The lesser officers of each of the Orders, lawyers, etc were not members of the Council. [2]
Without a military function, the four Orders became a valued means of honoring the nobility and rewarding servants of the Crown who had distinguished themselves. Thus, in the eighteenth century, a number of Jacobite exiles, who had served in the armies of Philip V, were received into the four Orders and rewarded with the grant of valuable commanderies. Several gentlemen of Irish, English, Scots and Welsh descent settled permanently in Spain and between 1702 and 1780 there were forty knights of Santiago of British birth or origin admitted, [3] and a handful to the other four Orders (Santiago attracted more postulants because of the larger number of benefices available). The admission into the four Orders of foreigners who were not in the service of the Spanish crown was almost unknown, and although there is no prohibition against non-Spanish members of the four Orders today, only one - the Duke of Braganza, Head of the Royal House of Portugal - has been admitted. [4] Membership of the Order of the Golden Fleece, which was regarded as having greater prestige both by the Borbón Kings and non-Spaniards, was considered incompatible with membership in any of the four military Orders until a reform of 1773 (before which a Papal Bull was required to leave one to receive the other). The Fleece was therefore the preferred award of the Spanish Kings for foreigners and the greatest nobles, while the four Orders were used to honor service to the Crown, until the establishment of the Order of Charles III, whose lowest rank also could be granted to less illustrious individuals.
The downfall of the Borbón Kingdom in 1808 and the establishment of a Bonapartist Monarchy under Joseph NapoLeón, led to the suppression of the four Orders by the secular authorities (canonically invalid) and the seizure of their benefices. [5] Ferdinand VII re-established them and restored their properties upon recovering his Crown in 1814. Between 1814 and their suspension by the revolutionary government in 1869, there were some three hundred and forty-admissions into the Order of Santiago, one hundred and fifty into Alcántara and eighty-five into Montesa.
The liberal government of the regency of María-Christina attempted to suppress the Orders in 1836, confiscating their benefices, but re-established them shortly afterwards (without restoring their estates). Their exempt ecclesiastical jurisdiction was preserved under the terms of the 1851 Concordat, by which certain of the confiscated properties were restored and concentrated together near Ciudad Real, which was established as a Prelature nullius dioeceseos, under the title Priory of the four reunited Military Orders of Santiago, Calatrava, Alcántara and Montesa [6]. In 1873 the Holy See, acting in disregard of this earlier agreement, suppressed the exempt jurisdiction - to accord with the wishes of the new republican government - but following the restoration of the Borbón Monarchy once again, with Alfonso XII as King, the four Orders regained their independence in 1876. Their ancient prerogatives restored, but with only those benefices situated at Ciudad Real, the status of the four military Orders was primarily honorific - since the Order of Saint John had ceased to require proof of nobility from the mid-nineteenth century they were the only surviving Spanish Orders for which proof of nobility was required. [7]
Once Alfonso XIII attained his majority, he began to take interest in the Orders and their well-being, and attached to his other titles that of "Grand Master" - obtaining de factoPapal approval of his new title of Grand Master and Perpetual Administrator when the Holy See confirmed certain regulations in 1916. The King was accustomed to wear the crosses of the four Orders on all official occasions and actively participated in their ceremonies. Indeed, the white mantle with the four Crosses was taken with him into exile in 1931 and, on his death ten years later, his body was dressed in this mantle when it lay in state. After his exile in 1931, a handful of new knights were admitted whose nominations had been under way before the downfall of the Monarchy - including several knights of Santiago and Calatrava. [8] The Count of Barcelona, who succeeded him as claimant to the Spanish Throne, made only two admissions during the years from 1941 until the restoration of the Monarchy, the Infants Luis-Alfonso and José-Eugenio, Princes of Bavaria, who were received as novices on 23 April 1941. The Republic had declared the four Orders abolished by an act of 29 April 1934 but, although this action was canonically invalid, the nationalist government did not accede to the four Orders request for reestablishment. [9]
The restoration of the Spanish Monarchy in 1975 led to new moves to restore the four Orders. In 1978 the Count of Barcelona, who had abdicated in favor of his son, King Juan Carlos I, as Head of the Royal House of Spain and Chief and Sovereign of the Order of the Golden Fleece in the previous year, was nominated Dean President of the Council and Tribunal of the Orders of Chivalry of Santiago, Calatrava, Alcántara and Montesa. On May 29 of that year, Don José Fernández-Villaverde y Roca de Togores, Marquess of Pozo Rubio and Grandee of Spain (a novice knight of Calatrava since 1921), was appointed to be "Councilor-Minister" of the four Orders. Three years later on 14 October 1981, in a decree signed by the Count of Barcelona in the name of the King, the Marquess of Pozo Rubio was nominated "Grand Commander" of Calatrava - an appointment which was followed by that of D. Gonzalo García de Blanes as "Grand Commander" of Alcántara on 15 March 1982 (succeeded by the Duke of Calabria on 13 October 1986). On 7 December 1982 the first admissions of novices to the four Orders begun - eight to Santiago, twelve to Calatrava, six to Alcántara and two to Montesa. The first professions were permitted from January 1983 - some of those making profession having been novices for sixty years or more.
Today the four Orders have a total membership of more than two hundred and thirty - the majority in Calatrava - re-establishing themselves rapidly and adopting various humanitarian duties. His Majesty the King retains the title of Grand Master, Perpetual Administrator by Apostolic Authority, the late Count of Barcelona was "Dean President" until the nomination by His Majesty of His Royal Highness the Infante Duke of Calabria as his successor on July 5th, 1993. There is also a Minister Councilor (previously the Duke of Calabria) and two Councilors. The post of Prelate of Ciudad Real, to which the titular Episcopal see of Dora had been attached, has, since 1984, been elevated to the status of Bishop of Ciudad Real (within the Archdiocese of Toledo), and the Priory of the four Military Orders is still attached thereto. The Holy See has not intervened in the re-establishment of the Orders and when a request was made as to the attitude of the Vatican, an informal reply was given that their abolition in 1934 had been unrecognized by the Holy See and that previous privileges (excepting the exempt ecclesiastical jurisdiction) had not been revoked. Each of the four Orders have initiated ceremonies at their ancient seats but the principal ecclesiastical seat is the Church of the four Orders in Madrid.


Footnotes

[1]The most recent study in English of the Military Orders can be found in Desmond Seward, The Monks of War, Eyre Methuen 1972, pp.135-193.
[2]For a general historical survey of the four Orders see Count Carlos Zeininger de Borja, Les Quatre Ordres Militaires d'Espagne, in Rivista Araldica, 1949, pp. 113-115, pp.208-214. For a more detailed study, see Helyot, op.cit..
[3]Including Daniel, 1st Count O'Mahony in 1711, while in 1789 John and Sebastian O'Kindeland, the latter the ancestor of the famous General in Franco's Nationalist Army, were admitted.
[4]To the Order of Calatrava, as a Novice knight, in 1985.
[5]Although four knights of Santiago were admitted (between 1811 and 1813) and two knights of Alcántara (in 1810 and 1813).
[6]The Priorato dei Riuniti Ordini Militari Spagnoli di Santiago, Calatrava, Alcántara, Montesa (Annuario Pontificio, 1994).
[7]Noble proofs were later restored in the Spanish Priory of the Order of Saint John after it was reunited with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, but were generally less rigorously applied. Today, because of internecine squabbling among the members of the Spanish Assembly of the S.M.O.M. and a cooling of the relationship between that Order and the Royal Family, many of the most eminent candidates who might hitherto have been expected to join Malta have instead joined the four Orders.
[8]Among the latter were the Conde de Barajas and D. Diego de León y Núñez-Robles, on 7 April 1932, the Marqués de Herrera and his brothers D. Luis and D. Ramón Díaz de Bustamente y Quijano on 23 February 1935. Certain of the titular offices of the Order were filled by a process of seniority - for example in 1960 the Baron de Llauri was appointed to the post of Clavero Mayor of the Order of Montesa.
[9]This decision of the Franco government, which ultimately re-established every other Monarchical institution, was never explained and it has been presumed that it was related to their decision not to prohibit the actions of the "Order of Saint Lazarus" which established itself in Spain in the 1930's.
ORDER OF SANTIAGO
ORDER OF CALATRAVA
ORDER OF ALCANTARA

ORDER OF MONTESA

Stand To for 2 September, 2013

Push Back with Prayer
0700 at BJ’s Restaurant
Hamilton, Montana

1. Opening - Round the Table Individual Prayers
2. Morning Psalm: 1
3. Breakfast Reading: Matthew 23:1-36
4. Breakfast is served
5. Breakfast Discussion Topic: Our Christian Community
6. Closing - Round the Table Individual Prayers

Department of Defense Classified Evangelicals, Catholics as 'Extremists' like Al-Qaeda, Documents Confirm

  • (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom via The Christian Post)
    Alliance Defending Freedom provide slides from the Power Point presentation used by the U.S. Army Reserve in training soldiers on religious extremism.
August 28, 2013|3:59 pm
The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty revealed that on Monday it received more than 1,500 pages of documents confirming that the Department of Defense classified religious groups such as Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, and Mormons as religious "extremists" similar to Al-Qaeda and the Ku Klux Klan in training materials.
"Men and women of faith who have served the military faithfully for centuries shouldn't be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States," said Chaplain (Col.) Ron Crews, USAR retired, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.
"The materials we have received verify that the military views the Southern Poverty Law Center as a 'reliable source' for Equal Opportunity briefings even though it has engaged in a pattern of labeling evangelical Christians, Catholics, and other conservative and orthodox faith groups as 'extremists.' The documents demonstrate that the Department of Defense has chosen to rely on these biased SPLC materials to train Equal Opportunity Officers in the military."
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization founded in 1971 and headquartered in Alabama, has labeled a number of organizations with conservative ideals as "hate groups," including the Family Research Council.
The Archdiocese for the Military Services and the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty found evidence earlier this year that showed that U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training briefs listed Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as "religious extremism," with a slide putting them alongside groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Ku Klux Klan.
"The number of hate groups, extremists and anti‐govt organizations in the U.S. has continued to grow over the past three years, according to reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They increased to 1,018 in 2011, up from 1,002 in 2010 and 602 in 2000," a slide presentation labeled "Extremism & Extremist Organizations" reads.
After the Chaplain Alliance obtained those slides, it filed a Freedom of Information Act request in order to obtain all materials relating to the information soldiers have been given during military training.
"The materials we obtained establish that the U.S. military violated its appropriate apolitical stance and engaged in a dishonorable mischaracterization of multiple faith groups. Its actions harm and threaten the rights of the countless men and women defending our country who are members of these various faiths," Crews explained.
The Chaplain Alliance executive director called on the military to make sure that no future briefings rely on materials provided by the SPLC or similar groups who place such faith groups on the same standing as extremists and terrorists.

We are Americans!


The Muslim Brotherhood: Origins, Efficacy and Reach

By Raymond Ibrahim On August 28, 2013

Originally published by World Watch Monitor.

[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 manipulatingnews 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 Nayefdenounced 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.