Barack Obama’s Support for the Rise of Political Islam

It remains fairly astonishing that most diaspora Jews still do not understand that United States president Barack Obama assisted the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East, particularly in Egypt.

One very simple fact needs to be understood by people who care about US foreign policy in the Middle East:

Barack Obama supported the rise of political Islam within that part of the world.


He did so despite the fact that devotees of political Islam (or radical Islam or Islamism) stone women to death for alleged promiscuity, hang Gay people from cranes because Allah apparently does not like Gay people, and calls for the genocide or dhimmitude of the Jews and the Christians because dhimmis, and other non-Muslims, refuse to accept Muhammad as the prophet of God. How it is that the great majority of American Jews favor a president that supported a political movement that denigrates their own people is a question that future historians and sociologists will spend many, many hours researching and pondering.

When told that Barack Obama favored and assisted the rise of political Islam, however, many western-left Jews simply scoff. The truth, of course, is that Obama did assist the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East and admitted it, himself.

In his September 25, 2012 speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations he said this:

It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.

The United States has supported the forces of change.

These are Obama’s own words. It is he that claims that under his administration the United States supported the so-called “Arab Spring.” So, what was the “Arab Spring”? It should be entirely clear to everyone by this point that it was not the great up-welling of Arab democracy but the rise of political Islam, which is the theocratic-authoritarian movement to impose al-Sharia on the peoples of the world, starting with the peoples of the Middle East.

That is what Obama supported and claimed to support. This is not a matter of hyperbole or interpretation. He said what he said and he did what he did and we need to recognize it. He may have done so out of either ignorance or stupidity, but that he did so is no longer open to question. If it was ignorance, then he did so out of a belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular and moderate. Perhaps Obama gave too much credence to his National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, who told Congress that “The term Muslim Brotherhood is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.”

How it is possible that the National Intelligence Director of the United States under Barack Obama could believe such nonsense boggles the mind. The Muslim Brotherhood, as anyone who has done even a little research into their roots can tell you, is meant to advance Sharia, which is religious law.

It is, therefore, not secular. Furthermore, if you read prominent historical scholars who have written about the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Matthias Küntzel or Paul Berman or Jeffrey Herf, you will learn that the Brotherhood emerged in 1920s Cairo as a theocratic-fascistic movement opposed to modernity, opposed to secularism, in opposition to the west, and in racist opposition to the well-being of the Jewish people.

Although numerous countries throughout the region are falling to political Islam, I will limit my comments to Egypt because that country is among the most geo-politically significant countries in the Arab-Muslim world and because it is in Egypt that Obama has done the most damage in his work on behalf of that movement.

Obama’s main efforts in assisting the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East consisted of his efforts on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is a violently racist organization that was founded in the 1920s and that, like the Nazis in Germany at that time, or the Ku Klux Klan in the United States at that time, sought to impose its fascistic vision through violence. The Muslim Brotherhood then, and the Muslim Brotherhood now, is in direct opposition to western values precisely because Sharia is directly in opposition to western values.

That Barack Obama would seek to bolster the fortunes of such a political movement is unconscionable and Jewish people and women and Gay people and all people, who do not wish to live under theocratic dominance, should object strenuously. Part of the problem that we have, however, is that Obama’s Jewish supporters tend to simply turn away their heads. They refuse to acknowledge that which is directly before their noses. And what that means is that we must use the evidence before us to encourage them to open their eyes.

Obama directly claimed his support for the “Arab Spring,” which is the rise of political Islam.

He said so in his Cairo speech.

The Cairo Speech:

Prior to helping oust Hosni Mubarak, Barack Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood, over Mubarak’s objections, to his 2009 speech in Cairo. From the 1920s through the demise of Mubarak, throughout the period of Arab nationalism, Egyptian regimes consistently suppressed the Brotherhood and sometimes executed their leadership. For almost a century the political tension in Egypt has been between racist military dictatorships and racist theocratic insurgents. With the rise of Arab nationalism in the middle of the twentieth century, with Nasser leading the way, Arab theocracy throughout the Middle East was on the wane until the Iranian revolution of 1979.

By inviting the Brotherhood to the Cairo speech, Obama validated the political movement for Sharia that, in its modern form, began with Hasan Al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, was greatly advanced by the Iranian revolution and that is further advanced with the heinous riots and rapes and murders that are collectively known as the “Arab Spring.”

Many critics condemn Obama’s Cairo speech for implying a moral equivalence between the European effort at Jewish genocide and al-Nakba (the catastrophe). The alleged “catastrophe,” of course, is that the local Arabs made war upon the Jews of the Middle East, often fighting against women and Holocaust survivors, and lost, despite their great numerical advantage. Thus at the very outset of the Obama administration he assisted in the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt while denigrating the Holocaust by suggesting a moral equivalency between the horror of the genocide of the Jews and the displacement of Arabs who likewise sought the genocide of the Jews.

Ousting Mubarak:

Barack Obama demanded that Mubarak step down knowing full-well that the Muslim Brotherhood was waiting in the wings. Given the fact that he invited the Brotherhood to his Cairo speech he certainly knew that they were a force to be reckoned with in that country. Since he knew the Brotherhood was a significant organization surely his advisors must have informed him about the history of the organization, including its connection to Nazi Germany.

This gets to the crux of the matter. Either Obama knew of the Brotherhood-Nazi connection or he did not. If he did not, then he is guilty of dangerous and shameful ignorance. But if he did, it is worse. If Obama understood the Brotherhood’s connection to Nazi Germany then he is guilty of something a tad more serious.

In any case, by calling for Mubarak’s ouster Obama helped clear a path for the Brotherhood to come to power in Egypt.

It has to be understood that when Obama called for the ouster of Mubarak he assisted the Brotherhood’s rise to power and thereby assisted the rise of political Islam throughout the region.

Ensuring the Ascendancy of a Racist Regime:

The Muslim Brotherhood, after ninety long years in the political wilderness, finally came to power shortly after the election of Barack Obama and partly due to Obama’s efforts. The Egyptian election, and the referendums that followed, were not democratic because Brotherhood thugs prevented Copts from voting. One cannot claim democratic legitimacy if one suppresses the ability of one’s political opponents to express their will at the ballot box.

Nonetheless, directly after the semi-faux-democratic election in Egypt, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, flew to that country on the instructions of Barack Obama for the purpose of advancing relations between the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a July 14, 2012, piece written for the New York Times by David Kirkpatrick, he writes:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Egypt on Saturday for meetings with its newly elected Islamist president and the chief of its still-dominant military council, declaring that the United States “supports the full transition to civilian rule with all that entails.”

With the rise of political Islam in Egypt, under the Muslim Brotherhood and now deposed president Muhammed Morsi, what civilian rule entailed was the suppression and victimization of the Copts, an increase in the oppression of women, the institutionalization of a particularly violent form of religious homophobia, and incitement of genocide toward the Jewish minority in the Middle East.

Kirkpatrick’s piece emphasizes a certain even-handedness during Clinton’s trip, but this does not change the fact that by visiting Morsi after the election she gave the US seal of approval to a political party, and a political movement, entirely at odds with western liberal values.

Furthermore, the United States sent the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt F-16 fighter jets and hundreds of Abrams tanks. How anyone can claim that the Obama administration has not supported the rise of political Islam in the Middle East when we have it on record that he sent them heavy weaponry is simply irrational.

Why it Matters:

If the Jewish people are not the most persecuted people on the entire planet within the last few mellennia we are certainly among the most persecuted. From the seventh century until the current moment Arab majoritarian conquerors in the Middle East have kept the tiny Jewish minority in a state of perpetual self-defense. For thirteen centuries the Jews of the Middle East lived as dhimmis under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperial rule.

In Martin Gilbert’s In Ishmael’s House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands, we learn that for the dhimmi:

There could be no building of new synagogues or churches. Dhimmis could not ride horses, but only donkeys; they could not employ a Muslim. Jews and Christians alike had to wear special hats, cloaks and shoes to mark them out from Muslims… A dhimmi could not – and cannot to this day – serve in a Muslim court as witness in a legal case involving a Muslim… men could enter public bathhouses only when they wore a special sign around their neck distinguishing them from Muslims… Sexual relations with a Muslim woman were forbidden, as was cursing the Prophet in public – an offense punishable by death. (pgs. 32 – 33)

The system of dhimmitude is central to Sharia law and it is a return to Sharia law that is the goal of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. Sharia is, obviously non-democratic and thus Obama’s support for the rise of political Islam under the cloak of “democracy” was a falsehood from the start, whether he realized it or not.

The question is not if Obama supported the rise of political Islam, but just why he did so? Some contend that he did so because of a desire to support democracy, but political Islam is non-democratic even if it comes to power through the ballot box. Others maintain that Obama is actually a crypto-Muslim and that he therefore supports the rise of political Islam because he is in sympathy with that fascistic movement. My suspicion is that the former explanation carries considerably more weight.

What drives Barack Obama is not malice, nor a desire to see the rise of political Islam or to undermine the United States in the region, but a deep naivety and ideological blinkertude that is exceedingly dangerous to the Jews of the Middle East, if not everyone else in the Middle East.

One can support democracy without supporting any and all political outcomes. The United States government has an obligation to its citizenry to support their vital national interests. There was a time when American governments understood this. Under this administration, however, it is no longer the case. If you believe that Obama’s intentions are essentially benevolent then you must believe that his administration’s efforts in that part of the world are intended to foster the greater good for everyone, as well as to support American interests in the region.

In both cases he has failed almost entirely. Thankfully, the Egyptian people and the Egyptian military fought back against political Islam in their country.

Nonetheless, embracing the Muslim Brotherhood was merely one in a string of foreign policy cognitive errors, but it was definitely among the worst and certainly suggested to this writer that this president could not be trusted.

That much is certain.

Check Also

From Israel: We Cannot Continue This Way!!

This posting will be brief. I had hoped to write next when a government had …


  1. Michael, this is an outstanding article, which succinctly explains the background to the current mess that is Egypt. There was no doubt, especially since his infamous Cairo speech, that Obama supported the MB and as leader of the free world, was instumental in giving the violent fascistic group a cover of respectability. The question of why he did it remains: was it naivety or a deliberate choice? You tend to the naivety explanation, but Obama is no fool. He is highly educated, and has a deep knowledge of Islam. He must know what the MB stands for.

    The other question: why do Jews still support Obama? I believe they have been fed the lie that progressivism = support for human rights and compassion for the underdog, both important Jewish teachings. Trouble is, progressive leaders beiieve in neither, but have managed to fool many, especially the elites. Will these Jews ever wake up? Who knows; they’re not showing many signs of it at the moment.

    • Pam,

      it is one of the ongoing mysteries that not only did the US president support the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East, but actually maintained American Jewish support while doing so.

      As an American Jew I find it both fascinating and absolutely horrifying.

      The American Jewish left is deeply in denial and I say this not as a conservative, but as a someone who comes out of the Jewish left. And, yes, I suspect you are correct when you suggest that the reason American Jews maintained support for Obama is because “they have been fed the lie that progressivism = support for human rights and compassion for the underdog…”

      In my experience, as someone who marched against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who phone-banked for Barack Obama in 2008, and who participated in the on-line discussion among progressives on places like Daily Kos, I can tell you that most progressive-left Jewish opinionators are more in a fight against Republicans than they are against Islamist fascism.

      The real problem is that their priorities are skewed and this is because American security and isolation leads to a sense of indifference among American Jews concerning the rise of political Islam. Furthermore, they have social and economic reasons not to rock the boat and this has an influence not just on what they say and do, but in how they even think on the conflict.

      • Michael, it’s not really a mystery why Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood, even though it’s a mind-boggling thought that he could have been chosen as the leader of the free world. Obama has made little secret of his support for the Brotherhood, as when he specifically reached out to them in his Cairo spech.

        What is a mystery is that Jews support Obama in such large numbers. I agree that they are deeply in denial. Another reason I believe is that Jews are especially sensitive to charges of racism – especially since the progressives have painted Zionism as racism -so they bizzarely practice a reverse racism (well, actually racism!) by supporting Obama because he is black.

  2. Maybe they should blow the shofar in the UN, Congress and the Whitehouse for a month, to awaken those who slumber and dream dreams of unreality.
    Obama is either a closet Muslim or a sleeping cell.
    He is the best friend that Muslims have ever had.

  3. Excellent article Michael.

    One can only live in hope that the MB will indeed be kicked out.

    I was also quite fascinated by the reaction of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He was against Mubarek’s dismissal back then and made no secret about it to Obama.

    Of course this is easily explained by the fact that the MB, and possibly Obama himself, have designs on taking over Saudi Arabia.

  4. Michael and those agreeing with Michael

    Could we pause and consider the following:

    The Cairo speech as well as the subsequent diplomatic ostensive statements and moves, could be interpreted as Michael had ventured. The alternative could also be:
    Pres. Obama is but one individual who cannot change the fundamental policies by which his country, the USA, has been functioning since well before Obama had assumed Office. We are dealing with a COUNTRY’S political profile, its very complex admin. structures, its fundamental political principles, foreign affairs being one of them.

    Apart from the fact that the invested powers of the President in foreign affairs has a slight contentions character, whereby the Congress still retains a strong position, the suggestion that United States, through its President, would engage in supporting a well-known radical Islamist entity, one traditionally predicated on a visceral anti-Western dogma, cannot possibly be sustained.

    Dissecting speeches from a determined premise, striving to confirm a certain predetermined theory, will always give way to conflicting positions. Mine is, respectfully, one of them.

    I contend that , following the ascent of Islamism of the radical type in Egypt, the actual legalisation of a movement well entrenched in a solid percentage of the Egyptian populace, needed a well calculated approach by the US.

    In the vision of Islamism, wherever found, but more so in Egypt, USA has been identified with the strongest ideological/spiritual/political fundamentals of the new Egyptian administration. We saw the radical anti-democratic changes Morsi tried to introduce only days after his victory etc. The way thought rational by the US Admin. was to attempt to diminish as much as possible these visceral Islamist sentiments. One must see the attempts through mere rhetoric precisely in the ensuing speeches, incl. the Cairo one, addressed to the new Egyptian Admin.

    To cut it short, the reasonable, expected US, and not only, political manoeuvres, consistent with US realistic, traditional FA policies have been a continuous support for the only, tangible, realistic opposition to the Islamist onslaught, the Army. Without any speeches at all the strategy of “appeasing” the MB has worked..

    We have now a political replacement with a formula most reliant as far as real US political/ideological interests must prevail on the minds of anyone interested in analysing the concrete US policy in Egypt, President Obama, only naturally included. The Cairo speech was a simple rhetorical exercise necessary to retain a modicum of “normality” in the US-Egypt relations under the prevailing political situation, seen as appeasing the Islamist regime.

    The speech looks completely different from the perspective of the current political situation in Egypt.

    Obama would be rightly assessed, as it was done by Michael, only if he would have come out after the military replacement of the MB, in defence of the MB…………….

    So far, it has not happened.

    • Otto,

      there is no doubt from an historical standpoint that the Obama administration supported the rise of political Islam.

      However, you may justify it, there is no doubt that it took place.

      Obama called for the ousting of Mubarak, knowing that the Brotherhood waited in the wings.

      He invited the Brotherhood to the 2009 Cairo speech, thus legitimizing a terrorist organization that is parent organization of Qaeda.

      After they came to power through a semi-faux-democratic election, he further legitimized the organization by sending his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in order to validate their rise to power.

      He then sent them heavy weaponry.

      The Obama administration thereby supported the rise of political Islam.

      There are no ifs, ands, or buts, here.

      The American administration did what it did and we have to acknowledge it and recognize it and not be afraid to stand up against it.

      Barack Obama is an enemy to the Jewish people and the sooner we acknowledge that, the sooner we can develop strategies in dealing with it.

  5. Michael

    I feel compelled to look at the US foreign policy through the existing experience, the events which have determined the dynamics in strategies,the adjustments in rhetoric, the aparent concessions for public consumption.

    The 2009 Cairo speech is dominated by God terms, the well known laundry list of soft touches, motherhood endorsements and the necessary posturings of “American Pride and Glory “. Anyone could have written the speech if only aware of the pressing US foreign and military problems in the region.

    The affable approach is compulsory when force is about to be unleashed, when secret deals of contingencies are worked out. The tactics of preventive softness is doubled not so ostensibly at all with precautionary measures. I will repeat the best example with pleasure, that being the strong, surgical and swift disposal of the same MB the same Obama was addressing discretely in seemingly engaging it into a rhetorical dance of spiritual dialogue of sorts.

    Anyone worth his political salt would have known how intransigent, uncompromising the fundamental Islamists are. Obama knows that radical Islam is predicated on violence, constant conflict, irreversible mission of domination. Obama emphasised the violent character of fundamental Islam when he singled out ONLY the followers of Islam in his reference to violence carried out in the name of religion. The subliminal message there was that violence shall be dealt with while the substantive tenet of the speech was one of conveying an intention of civilised co-existence between faiths, mutual respect and recognition. He repeated at each turn the importance of mutual acceptance.

    Back to tachles, I must conclude with the tangible reality that the same Egypt about to implode under the weight of bottled Islamism, is now back to the road to normality and one cannot but consider that it did not happen against the best of a Western World active in dealing with the menace of Islamic extremism, The notion that Islam must be opposed en masse is competently unpractical, self-defeating,and “defeat” is the key term, for a general state of war against Islam is not an option at all, Taming its excesses, an impending MUST.

    • Hi Otto,

      I very definitely agree that we cannot be at war against Islam, but we do not need to be. We merely need to oppose the politicalization of Islam, which is to say Islamism. The rise of political Islam represents the foremost challenge for Jewish people today. I think that we should acknowledge that.

  6. @Otto
    It is no big secret that Obama backs Islamists to the hilt.

    It is his desire to destroy Israel. His support of the MB is beyond all reason for a US president unless you are a Marxist/Muslim president which he is. His policies confirm this.

    Golda Meir even got Nixon’s help during the Yom Kippur war. Would Obama do anything for Israel? I think not. He wants them to go back to the 1967borders.

    His goal is to put the MB in charge of the ME – it’s that simple!

    I read a lot of US blogs, I have a lot of conservative (not necessarily Republicans) US friends and bloggers and that is the consensus.

    I agree with ‘Unbelievable’s ‘ comments.

    The man is a menace to the entire world.Not him actually but the people who support him.

    He can afford to golf 24/7. Makes no difference.

    He didn’t have congressional support to go into Libya but he did. That was a mistake. Now Al Qaeda is in charge and watch Syria fall in the same way if BHO gets his way.

    How to deal with him? Congress is irrelevant now.

    If the US citizens cannot impeach/control him what hope do we have?

    Nixon was impeached for lesser crimes than this man who was technically never qualified to be POTUS.

    The attempt to impeach Clinton now looks like a joke too. A ‘non-sex crime lie’ – laughable in comparison!

    The only thing BHO ever said that was true: We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America.

    That is what he is doing, except that he is also instrumental in transforming the world.

    That is what Fabian Socialists want and this is not too different to Marxism.Too bad our own leaders and Tony Blair adhere to that creed. The effects are happening all around us.
    It pays to be aware.

  7. Susan Parsons

    I think this clip sums it all up very well.

  8. Hi Michael

    I must repeat that I fully agree with you in respect to the menace of the radicalisation of political Islam, for lack of a better notion. I agree entirely that one of the fundamentals of modern radical Islam is antisemitism. I shall support the position that Jews and non Jews should fight against all aspects, no matter how veiled of antisemitism.

    That Obama is not an individual ostensibly passionate about matters Jewish, that he is not comprehensively aware of universal ethics which would contain values necessary in keeping this world free of prejudice, is also both expected and confirmed by intuitive and counter-intuitive perceptions about the person Obama.

    One detail that makes the process of assessing Obama comprehensively is that his success to the point of becoming relevant to any political discussion has been possible almost exclusively by his JEWISH political groomers. It is of some relevance the type of Jews that were instrumental in creating the Obama we are dealing with now. We know their names, they have been in the public arena. Some of the more instrumental just departed from the immediate proximity of the President.

    Yet, for all those concerned, Israel under Obama is enjoying unaltered tangible support from USA.

    It is unfair to say that Obama is responsible for the current situation in some parts of the Islamic world. Islam has penetrated with irreversible strength all current Islamic states/ territories more than some one thousand three hundred years ago.

    We shall discuss the ascent of modern radical Islam further, but blaming Western society for supporting the process is untrue. Blaming to some extent the same Western World as a cause is another issue…………

    • Otto, I do not claim that Obama is responsible for the rise of political Islam, merely that he has assisted as we saw with the Muslim Brotherhood and that Jewish people should not support any politician who is supportive of political Islam.

  9. While not responsible for the rise of political Islam, Obama has encouraged its spread and given it a legitimacy it does not deserve. Why he is supporting the MB is open to opinion, but I agree with Susan that he is supporting them and must know about their desire to destroy Israel, also their animus towards the West, as part of their mission is “to sabotage their miserable house from within”.

    • “The man doth protest too much, methinks” that he is not Muslim.
      Everything points to it
      • Father Muslim
      • Stepfather Muslim
      • Educated Indonesia
      • Went to a church with a radical priest, whose name I forget
      • Bowed, kneeled and kissed the hand of the King of Saudi Arabia
      • More and much more

  10. Hi Michael

    You are right, you did not say that Obama has encouraged the rise of the MB, others have said it here and I argue against the idea as such.

    As much as I know better than antagonizing people on the same site, I am urged to consider Obama’s necessary rhetoric of addressing a massive group, the followers of Islam in a manner that attempts to allay the established fairly recent sub-ideology that America is the great Satan, the main enemy, the TARGET , the prime dhimmis to be fought wherever they may be found ( Iraq, Afghanistan, USA etc.etc ).

    It is Obama’s obligation to defend, even in an non-offensive way ( lexically the definition of “defend” ) his nation. Obama uses here the best arguments he could find, while careful NOT to betray his function/country.

    I will admit that, if I were an American voting person I would have gone for the Reps. Yet, some of the video clips we see, are part of the strong Republican electoral PR campaign. They had to extrapolate simply because the character of the American electoral vernacular/tactics function precisely on this technique. For all intents and purposes Obama is of a completely different faith, I don’t even care which strand of Christianity.

  11. Perfectly right, the ancient Egyptians, totally non Islamic and Babylonians are responsible for the creation of algebra, as well as Alexandrians Hellenists, again, nothing to do with Islam.
    Who said that Obama is an intellectual “colossus” – see Alexandria again -, just a hood boy who made it good.