Talk:Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.|
DYK nomination 
NPOV Violation 
This very concept of this page violates NPOV violation. Calling things a conspiracty theory when there is evidence to support the claims is bias. I am putting on a request for deletion tag. Please do not remove it until this article has been discuss by the wider community. Ad please, above all, keep the conversation civil. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. The people who claim the Bush destroyed the World Trade Center claim to have evidence, but it is bullshit. So are Bachmann's asinine claims. There is no actual evidence to support what she is saying, only her bizarre spin on innocuous information. NPOV does not mean accepting every nonsensical, attention-seeking lie any politician utters as valid. Now, you've put on a RfD tag, but you don't seem to have actually listed the article for deletion. Do you care to fix that, or should I just remove the tag and let everyone get on with their lives? If not, I should point out (to paraphrase you) the very concept of this deletion proposal violates common sense. First of all, calling something a conspiracy theory does not, ipso facto make it untrue. Also, had you bothered to do the tiniest little bit of research (you know, typing "conspiracy theory" in the search box), you would have found that there is actually a long-established page called List of conspiracy theories that goes back at least as far as 2003. And as for your abrasive challenge to "above all, keep the conversation civil", wasting people's time with poorly-informed and incompetent use of process isn't the way to achieve that result. -Rrius (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, there is a plethora of evidence. Just because you don't like Bachman is no reason to falsely accuse her.
http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bachmann-Final_072312.pdf --Korentop (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Irresponsibly distorting information is not evidence of anything but irresponsibility. The link does not provide a scintilla, let alone a plethora, of evidence. Trying to smear a State Department on the basis that her brother was the member of a group, of which Prince Charles is patron, at the same time someone this "source" claims is a "Muslim Brotherhood cleric" is frankly idiotic, and is exactly the kind of flummery that conspiracy wackos (including certain politicians) glom onto. Your "plethora of evidence" goes on to allege that Oxford University has been "infiltrated" by Islamists, and specifically smears the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. The whole thing is nothing but innuendo and smear, and would never stand up to scrutiny as a reliable source. Even if were were to take this flaming pile of shit as real evidence of the matters asserted, it would still not lead to the conclusion that this article should be deleted.
- Walid Shoebat, by the way, has been exposed as a fraud and has no credibility. He's certainly not a reliable source, nor does his website provide "evidence" for anything. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- As for your civility note at my talk page, the IP editor is challenging the existence of an article based on its "very concept". It is not uncivil to point out that conducting the most basic search would have informed him or her that other such articles exist. It is also not uncivil to point out that ill-informed and incompetent use of process is a waste of others' time. -Rrius (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I defer to Rrius's reasoned judgment as to what constitutes, as he or she says, "bullshit" or "bizarre".
However, this article is an embarrasingly tendentious NPOV violaton.
It may be of interest to consider that the Muslim Brotherhood wishes, by its own statements, to bring the world under the rule of Islam. Or as Wikipedia currently has it, accurately, "The Muslim Brotherhood is a Pan-Islamic movement that seeks to reestablish a world-wide caliphate that rules based on Shariah Law".
Many American Muslims support the organization. Many Muslims raised in Saudi Arabia support the organization. It's not bizarre that a professed Muslim raised in Saudi Arabia might have links to it or believe in it or support it, particularly if many of their close family members do.
One may think it is bizarre that such an organization exists or that it has supporters in America. But it does exist, does have supporters in America and they do seek to advance its aims as best they can, covertly and overtly. That's not a conspiracy theory. Asking questions about the real and existing support for the Muslim Brotherhood in America is not outside the domain of normal political process.
The premise of this article "Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy Theories" in relation to acts of an organization committed to world submission by jihad is askew, and bordering on the absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't bothered reading the article. It is not "bordering on the absurd" to call the claim that CPAC has been infiltrated by the Brotherhood a conspiracy theory. It is not "bordering on the absurd" to call the claim that Keith Ellison is tied to the group a conspiracy theory. It is beyond bizarre to say it is a violation of NPOV to suggest that conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. Whatever the Muslim Brotherhood believes about spreading Sharia is irrelevant to what's in the article, and trying to parley whatever bad intentions they may have into proof of the nonsense claimed in theories noted in the article is foolhardy nonsense. It's the same kind of crazy anti-logic that the conspiracy nuts use to spin their silliness in the first place. -Rrius (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I regret that I have delved into what you think is "beyond bizarre","nonsense", "anti-logic", "crazy","foolhardy nonsense", or "conspiracy nut" business, Rrius. I see you are not one to be swayed, so I might take on your point of view.
I agree with you that the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean that any particular Muslim is a supporter of it, though many are. Similarly, not all Christians support the Pope.
It might well be a foolhardy conspiracy to inquire into whether an a devout American Muslim political figure, who recognizes the divine and supreme nature of shariah, supports the devout Muslim Brotherhood or not( which is described to us as "largely secular", anyway). Next thing you know, a conspiracy theorist will be claim that some politicians support Israel.
Nevertheless, can you please quote me the specific claims from "Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer", whom I am informed are "conspiracy theorists" that CPAC "has been infiltrated or taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood."? That does sound like a silly claim, I suppose. I will assses the claims on their merits and get back to you, perhaps as a supporter of your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have to say I admire the boldness of your intellectual dishonesty. What I said is that whatever the MB believes in is irrelevant to the question at hand, namely whether the specific items sited in this article are conspiracy theories. As for the Gaffney, et al., why don't you look at the source cited? That might just help you find what you are looking for. As for your blithe comment "Next thing you know, a conspiracy theorist will be claim that some politicians support Israel," that is a complete nonsense. Michele Bachmann and the fringe figure whose screed is linked to above claim Huma and Ellison are associated with the group based on nothing more than innuendo and smear. No one is saying that people have no right to "inquire into whether an a devout American Muslim political figure...supports the devout Muslim Brotherhood". What they don't have a right to do is use faulty logic and lies to try to paint people as tied up with Islamist groups. Or at least they don't have the right to have their distortions treated as fact. -Rrius (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Faulty logic and lies, I certainly pooh pooh. I agree with you completely that no-one should use faulty logic and lies. Certainly not when inquiring into how a person such as Huma Abedin, raised by professional promoters of sharia and Islamic supremacy managed to reject all that in order to get security clearance, and how some allegedly educated offical said that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular". (See http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bachmann-Final_072312.pdf, above) Definitely, by your standards, it is a conspiracy theory that the questions are being asked. The people asking those questions will probably cringe in shame when they realize how irrational they are.
But, it would help if you could point out the lies, specifically. That would be great, and really help to promote your cause. This is good advice.
Now that you've cleared that up, don't hold off telling me about the "beyond bizarre","nonsense", "anti-logic", "crazy","foolhardy nonsense" people whom you smear with what looks like ranting, but is actually cleverly logical and factual, because I'm sure they deserve it. (Goodness knows what you must think of people who disagree with you!) I read that article, and I could not find Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz, Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer stating how that CPAC "has been infiltrated or taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood." But, you know, it might have been the case that some of these people alleged that CPAC had members who also seek support Islamic causes, including the Muslim Brotherhood? Nothing peculiar about that. Or maybe they did really say that the CPAC "has been infiltrated or taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood." A quote will do it. If your vociferousness counts for anything, I am sure you must be right.I don't know. I'm asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- See, right off the bat you just parrot that Huma Abedin was "raised by professional promoters of sharia and Islamic supremecy", yet all you provide as proof is that same irresponsible link as Korentop is pushing. By the logic used in that piece, the Prince of Wales is an Islamist too. It also alleges that the Oxford University has been "infiltrated" by Islamists, and we are to take Shoebat's word for it. So too supposed to take his word for what is generally known about certain figures in Arab circles. Thank you, no.
- As for the four conspiracy theorists, the source article discusses them, Gaffney at length. If you can't comprehend it, well, that really isn't my problem. To give quotes I would have to cut-and-paste most of the article, which is an even worse use of my time than engaging with you.
- I don't actually expect you to start being able to see the difference between inquiry and irresponsible assertions based on skewed or made-up facts. You can try all you want to make yourself and your support for fringe idiocy sound reasonable, but other people will be able to compare what is in this article and its sources to what is actually in the Walid Shoebat screed you present, with its potentially libelous assertions cobbled from innuendo and invention. Despite your attempts, the fact that I have called it "bullshit", "nonsense" and the rest will not inhibit their ability to see for themselves that is wholly inadequate to support Michele Bachmann and her wackadoodle, McCarthyist troublemaking.
- I have no problem with people disagreeing with me—I do it all the time. I do have a problem with people trying to pass off crap as gold. I also have problems with editors like Korentop nominating articles for deletion on a basis that, even if true, would require a rewrite rather than deletion, and then adding to that misstep by actually failing twice to properly list the article. It amounts to a shambolic misuse of process, which wastes the time of everyone involved. -Rrius (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Rrius, if profanity, name-calling and absence of facts were arguments, I would certainly be convinced by what you say. However, people who have plenty of time for insults and proclamation of what they believe is self-evident, but don't have the time to set out the facts they rely tend not to convince anyone not already convinced. You are running the argument that a set of people are wackadoodles and "conspiracy theorists" and that wikipedia should promote your opinion as neutral. Great. You may well be right. Give us the facts. Telling us you think they are obviously crazy is great, but not really neutral. You knew that already, right?
I see that the Saleha S. Mahmood Abedin's (who raised her daughter, Huma Abedin, in Saudi Arabia) Islamic organization called "International Islamic Committee for Woman & Child" is on record as supporting sharia specifically including the repeal of laws against genital mutilation and child marriage, wife beating, polygamy, child beating, and all the ususal sharia stonings, hatred of man-made-laws, death penalty for apostasy et al. You know the stuff. Par for the course for Saudi approved professional Islamic academics of course.
Calling something like this "innuendo and invention" doesn't make it so. It is relevant to Abedin's upringing and values that her parents and close family members all promote these values. If Huma Abedin has disowned her mother's beliefs, that is quite story in itself.
Good for her. She might well warrant security clearance at the highest level if she is willing to act against her family's professed and lifelong interests.
However, anyone who can point out the lies or errors in Bachmann's letters would be doing us all a favor by doing so and showing us where the wackadoodles went wrong.
If you can't, I won't be impressed by further profanity or insults. If you can, I'm seriously on your side. Too much to ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Oxford University has been "infiltrated" by Islamists" seems to me as clear as daylight. Their Islasm studies program is run by John Esposito. John Esposito is a notorious apologist for the Saudi Arab regime, which is Wahhabi, i.e. hyper-Islamist. Consequently the statement "Oxford University has been "infiltrated" by Islamists" seems INDISPUTABLE! - Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Rrius appears to become very excited when discussing these issues. I think a phrase like "crazy anti-logic that the conspiracy nuts use to spin their silliness" is completely out of place in a serious discussion. It is not even clear whom he means by "conspiracy nuts". if he means R Spencer, for example, he should say so. And then provide evidence that R. Spencer is a "conspiracy nut". I personally have checked many of Spencer's statements and can state categorically 1. that Spencer's statements are NOT formulated in an alarmist, hysterical tone as would befit a "nut",and 2. on researching them I found them quite plausible. Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Rrius' claim that "As for the four conspiracy theorists, the source article discusses them" is false. The article Religious War Comes to CPAC, by Sarah Posner, The Nation, February 14, 2011 http://www.thenation.com/article/158539/religious-war-comes-cpac# doesn't discuss them at all. Geller's and Spencer's names are mentioned only once each in the entire article. Rrius is evidently not only a hysterical agent provocateur, but he actually appears to be a pathological liar. I propose that he be barred from posting anything on Wikipedia. Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Claims about US funding 
How does the section called "Claims about US funding" relate to the topic of conspiracy? All I see is a lame remark by a Congressman implying that the Egyptian govt is not to be trusted to keep money out of the hands of MB. Conspiracy?
One of the problems people have with this entry is the grab-bag of items it includes. If we restricted it to "MB infiltration of U.S. institutions" (real, claimed, supposed, and denied), we'd have a comparatively focused entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Claims about Keith Ellison 
"Ellison said that he was largely unfamiliar with the Muslim Brotherhood and had no ties to them". So what about the funding of his trip to Mecca by the "Muslim American Society", a terrorist funding organisation with close ties to the muslim brotherhood? Regards, Xypher74 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Disparagement of four living persons as "conspiracy theorists" 
In the second paragraph, four living individuals of varying prominence are disparaged as "conspiracy theorists". This claim is not supported by reliable sources. I have done a minor edit to reflect this invalid categorization of these individuals. Krjcheck (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
None of the claims in the opening paragraph are sourced. 
There are no reliable sources supporting any of the claims in the opening paragraph. It seems to be original research from the primary author of this article. Krjcheck (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- The opening paragraph is a summary of what follows. It should faithfully represent the remainder of the entry. As such, it shouldn't require sourcing, unless it uses a quote or a particularly contentious bit of info. Still a sucky entry overall. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that it doesn't faithfully represent the information contained in the sources cited. CPAC was not described as a Muslim Brotherhood front, and Huma Abedin was not accused of advancing the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda. At least not according to the sources provided. Krjcheck (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Explanation of reversion 
I've twice had to revert edits made by an IP editor who inserted text claiming that because the US government provides aid to the lawfully-elected Egyptian government, that somehow equates to funding the Muslim Brotherhood. It's obvious a ridiculous conclusion and pure synthesis that is unsupported by the NYT reference that was provided. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you can stop reverting now, because HE IS RIGHT. The distinction you draw between the Moslem Brotherhood and the Egyptian gov't is clearly based on profound ignorance of reality in Egypt, although I can't blame you. It is well known that the president of the country is an MB leader. However, few people know that the Egyptian civil service is being rapidly restaffed by MB loyalists and all secularist gov't employees are being dismissed. Accordingly the civil service is completely controlled by the MB. Therefore your reversion is COMPLETELY UNWARRANTED. My source is a statement by the spokesman of the Catholic Church in Egypt, Fr. Rafic Greiche, published in Italian on 4 March 2013. I had it translated into English. I am including the English translation followed by the Italian original.
- Muslim Brotherhood quietly replacing all local officials with people loyal to them [I inserted this headline]
- "Fr. Rafic Greiche, the spokesman of the Egyptian Catholic Church, launches an alarm over the growing Islamization of the country. "The Muslim Brotherhood - he says - are quietly replacing all local officials in governorates with people loyal to them. Egypt is increasingly becoming an Islamic country, implying grave risk in particular for the Christian minority." The clergyman stated that these changes occurring quietly and far from the eyes of the media. Islamists are replacing second and third rank officials, which act as "advisors" to the leaders of the various sectors of the economy and Justice system. "The general population - he says - notice nothing strange. But dozens of officials are being dismissed and replaced with others who are clearly intimates of the extremist establishment." Thanks to this "infiltration of the most intransigent wing of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis act without the fear of being punished."
- ORIGINAL ITALIAN:
- "P. Rafic Greiche, portavoce della Chiesa cattolica egiziana, lancia un allarme sull’islamizzazione del Paese. “I Fratelli musulmani – afferma – stanno sostituendo in sordina tutti funzionari dei governatorati locali con persone a loro fedeli. L’Egitto sta diventando sempre di più un Paese islamico, con gravi rischi soprattutto per la minoranza cristiana”. Secondo il sacerdote tale cambiamento avviene nel silenzio generale e lontano dagli occhi dei media. Gli islamisti rimpiazzano funzionari di secondo e terzo rango, che fungono da “consiglieri” per i responsabili dei vari settori dalla Giustizia all’economia. “La popolazione – afferma – non si accorge di nulla. Ma sono decine le persone licenziate e sostituite con altri personaggi dichiaratamente vicini all’establishment estremista”. Proprio grazie a questi “infiltrati le ali più intransigenti dei Fratelli Musulmani e i salafiti agiscono indisturbati, senza il timore di essere puniti”. “Egitto, due bambini copto-ortodossi di 9 e 10 anni rischiano la condanna per blasfemia”
- - 04:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk)
- Muslim Brotherhood quietly replacing all local officials with people loyal to them [I inserted this headline]