12:17PM
Stacher & Shehata: US should talk to MB
By 
Issandr El Amrani | Egypt Islamism US
Issandr El Amrani | Egypt Islamism US
Joshua Stacher and Samer Shehata have an op-ed in the Boston Globe about how the US should engage with the Muslim Brotherhood:
Opening a relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood would signal to ruling regimes and opposition groups in the region that the United States is committed to promoting democracy -- not just to supporting those who are friendly to US interests. Democracy requires a broader commitment to political participation, inclusion, reform, moderation, transparency, accountability, and better governance.But I wonder: if the US were to engage the MB, what would they talk about?
Furthering contacts with the Brotherhood would not constitute a drastic departure for American foreign policy. Despite the lack of a relationship now, American officials have had occasional contact with the Brotherhood in the past. American government officials last held talks with the organization in late 2001, under the current Bush presidency. Although the Egyptian government has occasionally expressed displeasure at such meetings, the American-Egyptian relationship has not suffered as a consequence.
Egypt receives billions of dollars a year in aid from the United States, and Washington has a responsibility to meet with all of Egypt's relevant political organizations. After the Brotherhood's success in the 2005 parliamentary elections and the increasing popularity of other Islamist groups in the region, the United States needs to consider an open and frank dialogue with moderate, nonviolent Islamist groups. And there is no more important moderate Islamist group in the region than Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
Reader Comments (38)
Thanks to Joshua and Samer for an interesting argument. But this seems to becoming much to late in the game of poltiical reform.
But I wonder:
Isn't the more pertinent question, "Why would the Muslim Brotherhood WANT to talk to the Americans?"
The US just does not seem like it has much to offer the MB other than official recognition. And the MB realize that they exist in Egypt - regardless of such recognition.
Maybe the US won't meet with the MB because they are scared the MB wouldn't meet with them. They do have some preconditions for meeting the Americans.
1) Foreign Ministry Approval for such a meeting
2) An Egyptian government official in the room at the meeting.
Seems to me that they want more Egyptian government recognition and could care less about the Americans.
No?
Thanks for spotlighting the op-ed though....It's useful.
From what I have gathered, it seems if any contact happens between MB and the US (I assume some already has), it will be between the CIA and a few MB officials. The last thing the Bush Admin wants is a NYTimes expose on government collaboration with.... *ISLAMISTS*
Hi Issandr,
That is the question...What would the MB and the US talk about?
I doubt they would be talking about political reform since the MB seem firmly in the camp of wanting more liberties for Egyptians and the current US administration seems content with hanging out with the politically deliberalizing Egyptian government.
From my point of view, Samer and I just thought it was silly that the US was not talking to the MB given they are the only legitimate political organization in the country (as well as only group that listens to a majority of the population).
I could care less about what they talk about and instead want to see an increase in dialogue. And, I believe that this view would be supported by the embassy (although I have no proof).
But I second Eric's point...the real question may be what does the MB get from talking to the US at this stage.
While I am wary of the MB and their little bros in the region (FIS, etc), I think a dialog is worth a shot, if only because the lower ranks in the MB and others have been so radicalized because of the failures and policies of their states. If the US can hold out a good faith gesture which is genuine, perhaps there will be movement on both sides.
Thanks for the answer, Josh. But I think it's worth thinking about what might the US get out of this (and vice-versa). Could a dialogue with the MB help the US improve its image in the region? Would it help it negotiate with MB-related groups like Hamas or the Syrian MB, or even the non-jihadi Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq? Would it merely provide a calculated leverage againts the Egyptian regime to scare it into getting its act together?
It's clear the MB would get, at the very least, the legitimacy of being recognized by the world's sole superpower as a political interlocutor. That is a big bonus, one that Hamas for instance sorely needs now. And perhaps the ability to influence pressure on the regime on those issues that the opposition and US largely agree with, such as improvement in human rights. But they would pay a heavy price domestically, first and foremost in the backlash this would cause in the Egyptian mukhabarat community (the most systematically anti-Ikhwan part of the regime, IMHO) but also in that it will take away some of their anti-imperialist prestige.
I can certainly understand why the Egyptian establishment would be againt such contacts -- it could result in a Lebanon-like system where political groups are constantly having secret meetings with foreign diplomats (in Lebanon's case Syrian, French, American, Saudi, Iranian, etc.) that play into domestic politics.
So you chose to publish other feedback, but not mine, which was critical of the op-ed. How democratic and pluralistic!
Should you feel inclined to publish my response after all, you may want to append the following URLs:
"The Muslim Brotherhood 'Project'" at www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415
"The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe" at www.meforum.org/article/687
"Aims and Methods of Europe's Muslim Brotherhood" at www.futureofmuslimworld.com/research/pubID.55/pub_detail.asp
[Ed. note: Seva Brodsky tried to publish a longer comment but encountered technical problems. I am pasting below her longer post. Issandr.]
In "Hear out Muslim Brotherhood" (3/25/07 op-ed), Joshua Stacher and Samer Shehata make a number of statements, which fly in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence:
A large number of articles expose the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is anything but "a mainstream non violent organization that has operated responsibly and predictably" and is "committed to peaceful political participation."
Saying that "neither the US Department of State nor the European Union considers it a terrorist group" is rather disingenuous, to say the least. The Muslim Brotherhood is far from being a "moderate, nonviolent Islamist group" -- it is a violent and militant Islamist organization, which has committed numerous atrocities, and should therefore be dismantled, let alone banned.
"The United States does not deal with the group" not only "because it is illegal under Egyptian law" but also because of the group's true nature -- Google search produces hundreds of thousands of hits connecting the Brotherhood to terrorism. Why would anyone choose to be so blind?
Excellently written and thoroughly documented exposés by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa Lappen (see "Ban the Brotherhood" at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20663 and "The Truth about the Muslim Brotherhood" at www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22916), among numerous others, paint the real picture of this "moderate, nonviolent Islamist group."
There's a wealth of similar information on the web and elsewhere -- see also “The Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project’� at www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415, “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Conquest of Europe� at www.meforum.org/article/687, and “Aims and Methods of Europe’s Muslim Brotherhood� at www.futureofmuslimworld.com/research/pubID.55/pub_detail.asp, etc.
The reality could not be further away from the ridiculous and misleading claims made by Stacher and Shehata in their contemptible Boston Globe op-ed, which represent a classic example of "taqiyya" -- an ancient Muslim doctrine of lying to the "infidel" for the promotion of the "religion of peace." While such untruthful statements might be understandable coming from Samer Shehata, they only serve to portray Joshua Stacher as a "useful idiot" for the Islamists.
Buyer beware ...
-------------------
Seva Brodsky
The Americans don't necessarily have to enter talks with the MB - and I share Eric's and Issandr's scepticism about the outcomes of such talks. What's more important, arguably, is the recognition of the MB as a legitimate political force, which could be expressed either by recognising them as interlocutors or by putting out statements of concern when they are locked up and thrown in the military court system, instead of speaking out only when bloggers etc have their basic rights denied. The US could send the message that it will no longer give the regime a free pass on Islamist opposition. That would in and of itself be worthwhile.
Regarding Seva Brodsky's comment above:
The articles you link to (all from publications with a noted anti-Arab, anti-Muslim agenda) either make broad, sometimes unsubstantiated, generalizations about the MB or refer to their positions on things over 50 years ago (for instance collaboration with the Nazis -- many Egyptian nationalists, including Anwar Sadat, did this to fight their "near enemy" the British) or quote some of its leaders simply saying the same kind of thing that political evangelical Christians would say in America (such as expressing the desire that their religion will one day "rule the world", or religious Zionists might say in Israel.
Furthermore, you seem to imply that Samer Shehata (because his name is Arab?) has some sinister goal in publishing this column and that Josh Stacher was somewhat fooled by him. Both are not Islamists but have spent considerable amounts of time studying them. They remain critical of them when criticism is warranted, but it makes sense -- in Egypt, Palestine and elsewhere -- to stop marginalizing groups with clear and legitimate popular support.
Seva:
I am choosing not to engage in your little name calling, personalized argument against me (reference to the 'useful idiot' comment).
I will also not dwell on the fact that you have to use other people's work to prove your points (rather than something - anything - original you have written, which is supported by research based in reality that you might have conducted).
I will ignore the fact that you have never likely ever met a single member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood on which you base your boarderline racist comments.
Instead:
I will use your central points and ask you to marshall some evidence to disprove our claims:
1) You said "A large number of articles expose the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is anything but “a mainstream non violent organization that has operated responsibly and predictably� and is “committed to peaceful political participation.�
Fine - Yes there are articles that argue the Egyptian MB is violent.
But in terms of reality - Name the last violent incident that the MB was implicated in on Egyptian soil. And then name the last incident the Egyptian MB was responsible for internationally.
2) Then you said:
Saying that “neither the US Department of State nor the European Union considers it a terrorist group� is rather disingenuous, to say the least. The Muslim Brotherhood is far from being a “moderate, nonviolent Islamist group� — it is a violent and militant Islamist organization, which has committed numerous atrocities, and should therefore be dismantled, let alone banned.
Check for yourself.....Is the Egyptian MB on the US department of State or the EU's lists of terrorist organizations?
In a word.... NO!
Saying that we are being disingenuous about this is just flat in the face of fact.
The rest of you argument is ideological and I would not be able to convince you otherwise. You are welcome to believe anything you wish.
But next time you decide to attack my (our) writing, please make sure your come to the table with more than an ideological chest of distortion.
Lastly, the fact that you think I have been hypnotized by some "Ancient Muslim Tradition" underscore how feeble your argument really is while simultaneously showing just how little you know about the contemporary Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
Also Seva,
I was in the room when a journalist asked Condi Rice why the US does not engage with the Egyptian Muslim Brothers. She answer kept strictly to their illegality under Egyptian law. She mentioned nothing beyond that.
I will not be answering misrepresentative arguments. Call me what you will, but I don't have the time to waste.
Issandr El Amrani writes: "The articles you link to (all from publications with a noted anti-Arab, anti-Muslim agenda) either make broad, sometimes unsubstantiated, generalizations about the MB or refer to their positions on things over 50 years ago ..."
Issandr, I suggest you read "The Muslim Brotherhood 'Project'" by Patrick Poole that I linked to, which is based on the evidence discovered in Switzerland about 5 years ago. The evidence uncovered is from 25 years ago. That article includes other, newer sources. I also suggest to read the other well-referenced articles I linked to, which contain fresh evidence.
Many (if not most) Muslims have a long-term view of history and goals, as opposed to the hedonistic and impatient West. Jihad has many forms -- warfare, when possible. When military campaigns aren't feasible or practical, then the spread of Islam can be attained by economic, demographic, and other means -- just read the translation of that MB document captured by the police from Youssef Nada (director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano) in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. This is nothing new -- all this has been described and prescribed in even the earliest Islamic sources. Calling my sources "anti-Arab, anti-Muslim" so as to dismiss their importance is the easiest thing to do. It's much harder, however, to dispute them, let alone debunk them.
As for "marginalizing groups with clear and legitimate popular support" -- Hamas also enjoys clear and popular support, but this did not stop Western governments to declare them outlaws. May I remind you that Hitler, too, enjoyed popular support. So did Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and numerous others. Today it's Castro, Robert Mugabe, and Kim Jong Il, to name but a few. The mere fact of popular support does not legitimize the movement enjoying this support.
Josh Stacher accuses me of name calling. I would expect an academic to know the meaning of the terms "useful idiot" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) and "taqiyya" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya). I indeed "have to use other people’s work to prove [my] points (rather than something - anything - original [I] have written, which is supported by research based in reality that [I] might have conducted)." But isn't this what most people do -- use other people's sources, references, and the like? Do we not rely on other people's work to move ahead? Or should we be reinventing the wheel each time? I admire your impeccable logic.
Indeed, I have never "met a single member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood on which [I] base [my] ... comments." Nor have I met a Nazi, or a KGB officer, or an Iranian Revolutionary Guard, thank God! Is meeting them a requirement to know what these people do or to pass a judgment on them?
As for the claims that since Condi Rice only referred to the illegal status of the MB in Egypt, without invoking their terrorist ties -- this is diplomacy, pure and simple. Their illegal status is sufficient in and of itself, therefore most politicians would avoid getting any deeper -- they simply don't have to at this point. Should the MB be legalized, then things would probably change. Until then, this is quite sufficient. Being on the U.S. State Dept. terrorist group watch list is not a neccesary, but a sufficient condition for being called "terrorist".
All the authors of the articles I have cited have excellent credentials, and I even know and admire one of them personally. They are all respectable and recognized authors, academics, and researchers. If you consider yourself qualified to pass a judgment on this subject, then I dare say their qualifications are more than sufficient.
Hey guys, the next time you get it in your head to summon the US Secretary of State to your table let me know, because I want to be the first to tell you -I don't want a representative of my country having anything to do with you.
"Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist "Young Egypt" (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL04Ak01.html
Are you denying this?
You want to talk to someone? You sure don't want to talk about this.
Talk to your friends - Hamas, Palestininan Islamic Jihad, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda.
I never met a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but you never met a Holocaust survivor. Go talk to them.
http://isurvived.org/TOC-I.html
Hey Muslim Brotherhood - Talk to THIS!
Larry, for Pete's sake, get a grip. I am sure Issandr has met several Holocaust survivors, they are easy enough to find in France and there are no shortage of them in the US. A lot of people, including Henry Ford, admired Hitler in the beginning for various reasons. When you look at colonial reasoning, you will find that abhorrent philosophies such as Nazism appear the provide an antidote, up to a point, against teh colonizing presence. This works equally in the reverse- fascist, repressive regimes in Latin America (Paraguay under Streossner, Argentina under the Generals, Chinel under Pinochet, Brazil under all kinds of people, El Salvador) found a willing partner in the US as they ley seige to their own people under the guise of controlling communism and left-wing guerillas. We tolerated, condoned and aided disgusting things done in our name and we didn't even have the excuse of a colonial legacy.
The MB as a whole are problematic in many ways, but one of the ways they are not problematic is in the holocaust dialog. That is a cheap, manipulative practice to throw that in.
Ok I don't know who you are. I wasn't talking to you, but if you are trying to defend the Muslim Brotherhood let me tell you ,I think you are weak.
You can talk about Henry Ford, Paraguay, "colonialism", or moral relitivity all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood are Islamic fascists.
"a cheap, manipulative practice"
Is that what you call it? In this coutry, we call it genocide.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not "problematic". They are Islamic Nazis.
Who is Issandr? Is he Muslim Brotherhood?
What has Issandr, or any other MB done for Holocaust survivors?
The Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in their own country - stay away from mine.
For the record, I am neither Muslim Brotherhood nor religious at all. I don't like them very much, in fact.
I don't see what Holocaust survivors have to do with all this, but I've met plenty and several people in my family died for being part of the resistance to the Nazis or survived the resistance (in Belgium), during which they helped among others Jews to escape Nazism.
Comparing the MB and the Nazis is a cheap rhetorical tool that doesn't deserve much of an answer. If you're hoping to get sympathy for your simplistic arguments by using the memory of Holocaust victims, it won't work.
re: the document discovered in switzerland, it's a late 1970s book about how the MB is going to "Muslimize" Europe. I doubt it has much credibility within Egyptian or other MBs, who are much too busy being thrown in prison. It is certainly not a template or master plan for global domination, and the Swiss journalists who sold it as such obviously wanted his book to sell well.
Larry,
In my country - aka the US, it's called a cheap, manipulative practice. And like Issandr, I, too, have relatives who were victims of the Nazis, taken from Italy to camps in Austria and Germany. And here's a little relativity for you: I hope you make a little effort on the part of the Armenians, because the roots of the early practices of the Final Solution are found in Ankara, April 17, 1915. And while you're at it, spare some symphathy for the desaparcidos of Argentina and the victims of Chile under Pinochet. Neo-Nazis ran many of the torture centers and set many of the policies- policies we, the US, helped them formulate under programs such as Operation Condor.
Fascism comes in many guises. Sometimes it looks like an MB, sometimes it has a ranch in Crawford, Texas.
I am not going to mince words with people like you. You're lying.
Nobody who lost relatives in the Holocaust would use the language that either one of you do.
"... broad, sometimes unsubstantiated, generalizations about the MB or refer to their positions on things over 50 years ago …�
". . .there are no shortage of them in the US."
" I don’t see what Holocaust survivors have to do with all this. . ."
It has to do with you posting a white wash of a Arab Nazi organization written by a couple of greasers who think flexing their little 20% is going to get the US Secretary of State to come sit by them.
That might play in Cario, but this an't Cario.
Did the Muslim Brotherhood ever work with the Grand Mufti?
What position did they take in 1948?
Was Yasser Araft ever a member?
Why does the HAMAS covent call for the destruction of Israel and quote from "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?
If the Muslim Brotherhood is so benign, why do they keep spawning terror groups?
You are willing to talk about anything anywhere that might change the subject from the Muslim Brotherhood. Who can blame you? They are Arab Nazis and their position is indefensable.
I scoff at your pretense to citizenship. You are either an American or you are Muslim Brotherhood, you can't be both.
Islamic fascism is completely antithetical to the values of any descent American.
This goes to you and all your Islamic fascist friends -
STAY AWAY
So, is Western facism more acceptable to you? How about Christian fascism? These are not particularly American values, either. What is your position on Executive Order 9066? On Operation Condor? On Negroponte and the murdered nuns of El Salvador? On the CIA drug running to fund the Contras? What is your position on the suspension of Habeus Corpus? If you truly believe in democratic principles and human rights, then these things would be an anethma to you. If not, I find your pretense as an anti-fascist to ring hollow.
Issandr, the document in question was discovered in Switzerland in 2001, and the materials discovered are from the 1980s -- it is NOT "a late 1970s book about how the MB is going to 'Muslimize' Europe" -- it was a plan of conquest, and by far not the only one of its kind. This type of ideology, strategy, and tactics is nothing new to Islam -- as I have already written here, it has all been described before in numerous Islamic sources, including the earliest ones.
As for your doubts about its "credibility within Egyptian or other MBs, who are much too busy being thrown in prison" -- these doubts do not change the facts on the ground, which all point in the same direction -- shariah for the whole world. I don't know about you, who stated that you were "neither Muslim Brotherhood nor religious at all" and that you didn't like the MB very much, but you can sure count me out of that global plan -- I prefer the West, its values and freedoms, and will fight for these to no end, as I have no intention of becoming a dhimmi.
Your statement that "It is certainly not a template or master plan for global domination, and the Swiss journalists who sold it as such obviously wanted his book to sell well" is completely wrong, I am sorry to say -- see above, and read the original early Islamic sources to verify this for yourself. I've done my homework, and sadly confirm that the discovered document is indeed "a template or master plan for global domination."
Larry and Zazou, I have lost many relatives to the Holocaust -- most of my family that stayed behind the enemy lines in the Ukraine and Belarus were lost to that genocide, which was the second major genocide of the twentieth century (the first one being the Armenian one). The only relatives of mine that survived were the ones who either moved to Moscow back in the 1920s and 1930s (as did my grandparents), or ran East for their lives when the Nazis attacked.
The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood was pro-Nazi, as was Hajj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, means a whole lot to me. As does the fact that Yassir Arafat was the ideological child of that genocidal movement. The MB is but a part of the larger global Islamo-fascist movement.
It so happens that I have many Armenian friends here in Boston, which has a sizable Armenian community in Watertown and elsewhere in the Boston area. I am an avid supporter of their plight for recognition of the Armenian genocide, and use every opportunity I get to talk about it to people who are ignorant of it. One of my Jewish American friends is the head of Armenian Studies at Harvard. Incidentally, the Armenian Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem is plastered over with the chronological maps of the genocide.
The U.S. has been guilty, like most other world powers, of supporting some rather unsavory regimes in its geopolitical games, especially in the past. This is the nature of politics, and is quite understandable, given the balance of powers in the world, and the struggle for supremacy in the previously bi-polar world. As one US Secretary of State quipped once, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch."
The U.S. is changing, however -- it is re-examining its policies and is applying pressure to instigate change in its less-than-democratic allies. I wish the US had issued an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia -- no more support for the Islamo-fascists, or you are on your own, or better still, we go after you. Not only that, but we should stop buying their bloody oil, and instead develop alternative and renewable sources of energy.
The Muslim world, which in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than Europe, has lost it all a long time ago. But then the Europeans and Americans found oil there. And so the Middle East went from almost nothing to very unequally divided lush opulence -- this is the curse of the Arab world, which can hardly produce anything anymore other than oil (with Western help), misery, oppression, and wahabbism. Bernard Lewis ("What Went Wrong?"), Samuel Huntington ("The Clash of Civilizations"), et al., have described it quite thoroughly and accurately.
No amount of interfaith dialogue is going to solve our predicament. There is but one hope -- that the Muslim world will go through its own Reformation and Enlightenment. Barring that, it's either us (the West, or Dar al Harb) or them (Dar al Islam). And if the world of Islam refuses to reform and embrace modernity, one of us will have to go. I sure hope we win, if it comes to blows.
When the polite "civilized" European chattering classes have all moved to the U.S., Canada, and Australia to escape the Islamization of Europe, and the only "whites" left there are the working classes, there will be no more dialogues -- those remaining Europeans will either commit ethnic cleansing and even possibly a genocide against the European Muslims, whom they perceive as a threat, or they themselves will be subjugated by the ever-growing European Muslim population.
In the meantime, the U.S., Canada, and Australia, along with India, China, and Russia, still stand a good chance of winning that war -- they have the guns, the people, and the ideology, which is not as suicidal as that of the ruling European elites. For all our sakes, I hope the Muslims choose the way of reform as opposed to the way of the sword. For that to happen, more Muslim reformers need to become outspoken and brave. They are out there, but too few in number, and usually too timid, justifiably afraid for their lives.
Sincerely,
The Infidel
Seva,
Most decent people would and should sympathze wth your loss - because this type of loss, be it the Armenans, the Jews, the Bosnians , the Cambodians or the Rwandans, diminishes us all beyond belief. As for your belief the US is changing- yes, it is. We are becoming a minor version of Argentina. While politics make strange bedfellows, this Adminstration,in particular, chooses to lay down with dogs. I find it unacceptable that First World apologia renders the misery our "friends" visit upon their citizens/subjects not only acceptable, but necessary in the greater scheme of things. You cannot push the concept of "government for the people, by the people, and of the people" and then when the people make efforts in that direction, aid in their surpression and expect them to worship you - the days of abject colonialism are over.
The curse of the Arab World is not oil- that is only a symptom. The curse is European colonialization and internally weak rulers, and its legacy. Colonialism is a disease that incubates and poisons the body cultural long after the infecting agent has left. Much of the Arab World has been nominally independent for less than 60 years. In the US, slavery was overturned over 130 years ago and yet that pernicious institution haunts us to this day.
I don't know what Issandr believes, but I believe that there is no need for an us v. them seige mentality. It is a sel-fulfilling prophecy to engage in this. There is room enough for Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam and Dar al coulshi as well (as in the rest of us unbelieving sods). Islam is no longer a simply Arab construct, and has not been for several centuries. The Islam of India, Indonesia, China and Africa is a variation, just as Christianity in Latin America is a variation- but it is being buffeted by the anger of a disenfranchsed Arab world which has seen its people and its wealth either exported for exploitation or treated like a pampered whore. It took the Armenians 60 years to explode, more than 70 to reclaim their story- why would you believe that colonialism and the support of repressive regimes would not express itself in something other than quaint songs and hookah bars?
There is a new wind blowing through the house of Dar al Islam, but it cannot do its job when it is constantly thwarted by intolerance and neo-colonial ideology. If the reformers are to have an effect on a religious ideology, one of whose first tenents is "read in the name of the Lord who made you" - then the West simply cannot continue to wage war abroad, deport, disappear and torture its Arab/Muslim citizens, and broker deals behind closed doors in Muslim/Arab countries that put young intellectuals in jail, allow the forces of order to prey upon their citizens and keep a corrupt class in power which is content to keep the people illiterate, impotent and below their capacities in order to enjoy power and prestige for a few days, a few months more.
Reform is a two way street. When Martin Luther tacked up his bulls on the door of the church, Rome took heed. He did not go unheard.
Seva, there will always be those who wish you ill through ideology or twisted personal belief, and it is good to be wary of them. But there are many more who wish you well, who come from many houses. Seek them out- it is a neighbothood that is holding a place for you.
This just in:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27610
MB “a mainstream non violent organization that has operated responsibly and predictably� and “committed to peaceful political participation�?
Me thinks not.
You show me nothing.
You have a pretense to education but your arguements are obviously fallacious.
You show me nothing as a man because you will not defend yourself. Instead, you run off to talk about something unrelated.
And you show me nothing as a Muslim Brother. Any group or organization that won't stick together isn't worth a damn.
Now I don't know what it takes, but I'm calling you out.
Talk about the Muslim Brotherhood.
I'm for real, Zabou.
Come on, jihad with me.
Tell how the Muslim Brotherhood is so great. Don't tell me about colonialism, tell me about the Muslim Brotherhood.
That post at the top of the page is not just a whitewash- its hog wash.
From your silence I assume you tacitly agree that the Muslim Brotherhood was an enthusiastic enabler of the Holocaust before, during, and since.
Seva, don't appologise for the US. The United States can stand on its own - can the Muslim Brotherhood?
What is the Muslim Brotherhood's position on women's rights?
You say you will protect her from the bad muslims?
Are they the muslims that would sentence her to 90 lashes for being gang raped?http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2007/March/middleeast_March71.xml§ion=middleeast
Do us a public service, Zabou, and straighten the record, because I think the Muslim Brotherhood ARE the bad muslims.
I don't think you have anything to offer anyone, let alone a woman, other than your breath and tales of horror.
The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in their own country - stay away from ours.
These guys are sedious killers where ever they go.
Here's a story about a guy currently doing life in prison. After getting his Muslim Brotherhood butt kicked out of Egypt, he thought he would come to the US and plan the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheik_Omar_Abdel-Rahman
Muslim Brotherhood stay in you cage!
RE: the evils of colonialism. Wah, wah, wah. How about the evils that colonialism eradicated, like keeping women illiterate, child labor, no schools, no roads, no possibility of prosperity? Many countries that were colonized are far better off today than those that were never colonized (ex: Afghanistan). They have a more educated, literate population, they have hospitals and schools, they have a functioning justice system, manufacturing and business, roads and highways to transport people and goods. It wasn't all bad. Much of it was an improvement over the native tribal-based, poverty-stricken societies. As the famous Minnesotan Dorothy Molter said: "Kwitchurbeleakin!" Stop blaming everything on the West.
For a chilling example of how these people work, go to the Wekipedia pages for the Muslim Brotherhood. All the references to Nazism have been removed.
Go to this page to see the man in charge of re writing history claim the MB was anti Nazi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_Brotherhood#Terrorist_organization.3F
This is a complete reversal of truth, and Orwellian in its depth and scope.
BAN THE BROTHERHOOD!