The proverbial jury is no longer out when it comes to the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood, but the leftist media continues to try to convince all who will listen that we should not be troubled by this terror-supporting organization. Unfortunately, they’re getting a lot of help from people in high places. Today in the Washington Post, Lorenzo Vidino, offered an op-ed to relieve readers’ concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood. Vidino does not mention in his bio that he was recently based at the Investigative Project on Terrorism [IPT] in Washington, D.C. Earlier this month, IPT published an articleoffering a decidedly different perspective.
Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group whose ideology has inspired terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, are in the United States and have supported terrorism here and overseas, FBI Director Robert Mueller told a House committee Thursday.
Mueller joined seven other Obama administration intelligence and law enforcement officials at a hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. They spoke of the Brotherhood’s U.S. ties as word spread in Egypt that President Hosni Mubarak was prepared to resign. Mubarak has repeatedly said his administration, in place since 1981, is the one thing keeping an Islamic state led by the Brotherhood from taking over Egypt.
Certainly, there is reason to be troubled.
One very reasonable explanation for the Left’s willingness to become Islamapologists is that they have embraced “dhimmitude“. It is not a stretch of the imagination to envision that so many have been swept up in a mission to defend the doctrines and agendas of Islamists because they have allowed Islamto conquer them either in embracing the hatred and collectivism of Islam or by simply being too afraid to speak out against a religion that demands the death penalty for critics.
As early as the eighth century, a formal set of rules was created to govern the relationships between the conquering Muslims and the defeated infidels. The framework of these regulations is known as “dhimmitude,” a term connoting the lowly legal and social status of Jews and Christians who are subjected to Islamic rule. Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to the indigenous non-Muslim populations that surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination.
A non-Muslim community that is forced to accept dhimmitude is condemned to live in a system that will protect it from violent jihad on only one condition: if it is completely subservient to a Muslim master. In return for that subservience, the community is granted limited rights, although dhimmis could be capriciously subjected to such depredations as mass slavery, abductions, and deportations.
No one would admit to having become a “dhimmi”. We can only surmise this from the behaviors that have been outlined in the previous ‘commandments’. It appears to me that in order for one to be unable to reject the core tenets of Islam, one must either be a devout Muslim, immoral, inept…or a dhimmi. I am certainly open to hearing other possible explanations.