Press Feed
Pages Menu

Russel Sitrit-Leibovich

Sharia in One Country

Since the events of the 2011 Egyptian uprising, the Obama administration and the liberal media have gone to great lengths to explain that the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact a moderate organization that poses no threat to the West. The New York Times Cairo bureau chief, David K. Kirkpatrick, insists that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “moderate, regular old political force” As opposed to the “bad” Islamists, the Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood supposedly eschews violence, accepts the democratic process and is committed to maintaining the treaty with Israel.The disagreement between the Salafis, like al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood is one of tactics, not substance. It is somewhat analogous to the debates within Marxist circles over whether the worldwide revolution had to be immediate or if it was possible to achieve “socialism in one country” first. The Muslim Brotherhood, since its inception in the 1920s, has been at the forefront of the attempts to Islamicize Muslim countries, especially Egypt. Only once the “near enemies” have been defeated ie. secular Muslim regimes, can attention be turned to the “far enemies” of the Western world. According the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Nahda (Renaissance) Project”, commissioned following Mubarak’s fall, building an “Islamic government” at home takes precedence over the establishment of the “global Islamic state”. “Thus we’ve learned [to start with] building the Muslim individual, the Muslim family, the Muslim society, the Islamic government, the global Islamic State and reaching the status of Ustathiya (eminence) with that State. If all of these secondary objectives are completed, the overall mission is achieved, that is the Empowerment of God's Religion.”Given Egypt’s disastrous state of its finances and its need for US support, the Brotherhood has attempted to put on a moderate image towards the United States. Make no mistakes though – anti-Americanism runs deeply within the Brotherhood’s DNA.… Read More

The Assault on Life

In ancient Spartan society, it was common practice to discard sickly or weak children in the wilderness, to have them die from exposure or to be eaten by animals. This was justified on the ground that these children would be a burden to their families and would not be able to contribute productively to their society. In a society devoid of the concepts of an eternal soul and morality, this practice made perfect sense. It was halted by the greatest revolution in ancient thought: the notion that man was created in the divine image and thereby possesses infinite value. Tragically, this very concept seems to be under attack daily.In the ancient world and throughout Medieval times, it was understood that kings were divine, often direct descendants of the deities. The most arguably radical concept ever articulated has its origin in the Hebrew Bible where man is described as being created in the image of God and thereby has inherent worth. It is for this reason alone that murder is forbidden, because every human life reflects the infinite sanctity of the divine. This extreme assertion, so out of place in a world where crushing slavery, child sacrifice, and prisoners being fed to lions for entertainment were the norm, earned the Jews the scorn of the ancient peoples. It was this stubborn insistence on the infinite value of even the most weak and disadvantaged that prompted the second century Roman writer Tacitus to explain disdainfully that “[among the Jews] it is a deadly sin to kill a born or unborn child.” In the millennia that have elapsed since then, this Jewish idea, taken up by Christianity, has spread worldwide. From here derives the Western concept of individual rights, that human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” However, the… Read More