TARIQ RAMADAN : VIOLENCE? WHAT VIOLENCE?

~ carolinefourestpourikhwan ~ Leave a comment

Tariq Ramadan : Violence? What violence?

28.07.2015 Caroline Fourest

Extract fom Brother Tariq The doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan

Tariq Ramadan vehemently denies that his grandfather had anything to do with the ever-increasing recourse to violence in the name of Islam. In his eyes, Hassan al-Banna is “by no means the ‘father’ of that ‘modern Islamism’ characterized by violent demonstrations and simplistic, obtuse anti-Western prejudice”.[1] Listening to him, one tends to forget that al-Banna founded a movement that intended to raise high the flag of Islam by whatever means, even if this meant “death on the road to God”: “Despite the portrait given of him by the British colonizers (who, in Egypt and elsewhere, have always accused their opponents of the worst violence and the most horrible crimes) al-Banna never killed anyone, nor arranged for a political assassination,” declared Ramadan in L’Islam en questions[2] – even at the cost of escalating from revisionism to negationism.

Hassan al-Banna was quite explicit in his praise for the armed jihad that he considered to be the highest form of courage. In 1940 he described for the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood what holy war entailed: “What I mean by holy war (jihad) is the duty that must be obeyed until the day of resurrection and which God’s messenger sets down in these words [….] The first stage in the sacred war is to expel evil from one’s own heart; the highest stage is armed combat in the service of God. The intermediate stages are waging war with one’s voice, one’s pen and one’s hand, and by words of truth addressed to unjust authorities.”[3] This glorification of armed combat as the supreme degree of the jihad was not a vain formula. In the months that followed, the Brotherhood decided to create a secret armed section, the Special Organization. [[See page xx]] Its mission was to prepare a selected number of militants for armed resistance. Tariq Ramadan does not deny the fact, but he describes it as a way of preparing for self-defence, an understandable concern when they were up against the British who might well decide “to physically eliminate their opponents” – or in case “they refused, after repeated urgings, to leave the country”.[4]   The truth of the matter is that the Special Organization was primarily engaged in sending militants to fight in Palestine. Even before the creation of Israel in 1947 the Brotherhood sent armed squads to track down the Jewish immigrants. Tariq Ramadan takes pride in recounting these events: “Al-Banna provided assistance to the Palestinians by sending them an advisor and a specialist in military training, raising funds to buy weapons, and setting up training camps that he ran jointly with members of the Special Organization. Volunteers came to Palestine in groups to support the resistance.”[5] Later on, another armed group in Palestine was to claim close links to the Brotherhood… Hamas.   Its very existence suffices to refute the idea that the Brotherhood’s ideology has nothing violent or fanatic about it. But Ramadan takes pains to explain that in Palestine violence has nothing violent about it since it is legitimate: “ Hassan al-Banna was opposed to violence and approved of the use of arms only in Palestine as a way of resisting Zionist colonialism.”[6]

Tariq Ramadan was well aware of the fact that his grandfather called for a jihad, but he vindicated him by explaining that the call was strictly limlited to situations of “legitimate defence” or “resistance in the face of injustice”.[7]   Two criteria that are highly subjective. On this basis violence was legitimate when it was a question of facing up to Nasser, just as it was in opposing British occupation. Or just as it will be every time that any obstacle threatens to block the Muslim Brotherhood’s quest for domination. Ramadan is brazen enough to claim that the association has never been responsible for acts of violence. Yet in March 1948, for example, a judge was assassinated for having condemned a Muslim Brother. And on the 28th of December of the same year, before al-Banna’s death, the Brotherhood claimed responsibility for the assassination of the Prime Minister Nuqrachi Pacha![8] These deaths could not have occurred without the Guide’s knowledge.

Hassan al-Banna had on occasion barred activists that were in too much of a hurry to go into action, as he did in 1938-1939, not because he repudiated the idea of an armed jihad, but because he found that the time was not ripe. During this period his movement was gaining ground among the people. He was intent on consolidating his political influence, and therefore sought legitimacy. If the Brotherhood were to be condemned for illegal acts, for assassinations or for setting off riots, it would disrupt the evolution of his campaign. In 1948 the Brotherhood went too far; another assassination tipped the scales and the organization was dissolved by military decree. On the 15th of November a demonstration organized by the Brotherhood to honour their “martyrs” degenerated into a riot in which two British officers were killed in their jeep. Those in charge often lost control of the young activists that they had fanaticised. Despite what Tariq Ramadan has said, the organization that his grandfather created was bound to produce fundamentalists who – when it appeared that indoctrination alone would not suffice – would be tempted, sooner or later, to take up arms in order to achieve their objectives. However, the fact that violence was a last resort is considered by Hassan al-Banna’s grandson to be proof of great moderation in their choice of tactics. He turns the cool and calculated radicalism of his grandfather into something more spiritual. By way of example he cites one of al-Banna’s speeches in which the latter tells his followers to carefully weigh the pros and cons of using force, but to take responsibility for whatever course is deemed necessary. “The Muslim Brotherhood will use force only as a last resort, when there is no other choice, and when they are convinced that they have achieved total faith and union. And if they must employ force, they will be dignified and sincere, they will give advance notice and wait for a reply; only then will they advance with nobility and pride, prepared to bear the consequences of their decision with confidence and calm.”[9] In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood has no intention of calling for an armed revolution, but they will be forced to do so if they don’t get their own way. This it what Tariq Ramadan, fascinated by his grandfather’s rhetorical astuteness, calls the Muslim Brotherhood’s “farsightedness”.

[1] Tariq Ramadan, Aux sources du renouveau musulman, op. cit., p. 29.

[2] Alain Gresh, Tariq Ramadan, L’Islam en questions, op. cit., p. 34.

[3] Olivier Carré, Michel Seurat, Les Frères musulmans, op. cit., p. 44.

[4] Tariq Ramadan, Aux sources du renouveau musulman, op. cit., p. 356.

[5] Ibid., p. 22.

[6] Alain Gresh, Tariq Ramadan, L’Islam en questions, op. cit., p. 34.

[7] Tariq Ramadan, Aux sources du renouveau musulman, op. cit., p. 356.

[8] Dictionnaire mondial de l’Islamisme [World Dictionary of Islamism], ed. by Les Cahiers de l’Orient, Paris, Plon, 2002, p. 188.

[9] Tariq Ramadan cassette, “Courants de pensées musulmane contemporaine” op. cit.

Caroline Fourest

Brother Tariq The doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan

Capture decran 2015-07-08 à 12.17.00

TARIQ RAMADAN PORTRAYED THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS A “LIBERATION MOVEMENT”

~ carolinefourestpourikhwan ~ Leave a comment

Tariq Ramadan portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as a “liberation movement”

18.07.2015 Caroline Fourest

The Muslim Brotherhood began organizing when, in March 1928, six companions, fired with enthusiasm by al-Banna’s preaching, sought him out to ask him to launch a political campaign in the name of Islam: “We have listened to your message, we are aware of where we stand, we are committed, but we do not know what practical steps to take to reinforce Islam and bring betterment to Muslims.”[1] The Guide will at last have the opportunity to demonstrate his gift for organization. He began by a piece of advice that would provide the Muslim Brotherhood with the means to survive the obstacles that repression was to bring – and to counter its critics: the cult of the informal. “One of his companions asked: ‘By what name shall we be called?’ And al-Banna replied: ‘None of that; leave aside appearances and officialdom. Let the principle and priority of our union be thought, morality and action. We are brothers in the service of Islam, so we are the Muslim Brotherhood.’”[2] A judicious piece of advice…. al-Banna had understood that a movement that could not be pinned down would be indestructible. In giving his movement a name that was both a title and an expression currently employed in Arabic, in which believers often address each other as “brother”, he created a means of identification that was discrete. From its birth on, the Brotherhood was both an official movement and a school of thought which one could claim to belong to, or deny being part of, according to circumstances. On the other hand the watchword was clear and unambiguous: “Our motto will forever be: God is our objective. God’s messenger is our guide. The Koran is our constitution. Struggle is our path. Death on the road that leads to God is our ultimate desire.”[3]

In other words it was never al-Banna’s intention to advocate a rationalist, secular Islam, but on the contrary to organize a movement capable of putting pressure on Egypt, and then on the rest of the world, to adopt a fundamentalist social order destructive of freedom. As proof, one has only to read the political and social program drawn up by al-Banna in 1936, a program entitled “Fifty Demands”, which was the Muslim Brotherhood’s manifesto for “concrete reform”. The manifesto spelled out in detail the steps to be taken to establish legislation, and subsequently a social, political and economic system based on the sharia. Throughout the manifesto it is said that individual liberties must yield to dictatorship by divine right. As to method, the Brotherhood intended to “go beyond political differences and direct the energies of the ‘umma’ [the worldwide community of Muslims] towards one sole aim”:   the attainment of a political Islam. The organization defined its objectives as “reforming the laws in conformity with Islamic legislation, particularly as regards the definition of offences and the punishments for crimes”,[4] and spreading “the spirit of Islam throughout all the branches of government so that all citizens consider it their duty to put Islamic precepts into effect”. In the meantime, in their everyday dealings, the Brothers intended “to initiate respect for morality among the people and make everyone aware of the regulations set down by the law”, which meant that “the punishments for violations of the code of morality should be strictly applied”. This objective, which was central to the program, involved several provisions, namely “eradicating prostitution”, “treating fornication whatever the circumstances as a serious crime punishable by law”, but also “forbidding coeducation”, “considering all private contact between members of the opposite sex as a punishable crime”, “closing down dance halls and other Centers of debauch as well as outlawing dancing and any form of physical contact between a man and a woman”.   And that’s only a brief résumé of the contents.

The manifesto was for many years available only in Arabic until the journal Islam de France decided to publish it in French so as to enlighten all those who, misled by the angelic presentation of the text given by Tariq Ramadan, were ignorant of the basically fundamentalist and reactionary nature of the Muslim Brotherhood.   The publication of this program, which proved to be quite different from the version that Ramadan had spread among the anti-globalisation leftists, was by no means welcomed by al-Banna’s grandson. Michel Renard, one of the founders of Islam de France, recalls having been the target of the latter’s anger: “It’s then that I realized that he practiced double speak: you can’t believe in a secular society and in Hassan al-Banna at the same time.”[5] This affront to the founder’s dignity resulted in the closing down of the journal. Al-Bouraq, the house that published the journal, but also publishes Tariq Ramadan, all of a sudden cancelled its contract after the publication of the issue in question, bringing to a close one of the most stimulating editorial initiatives devoted to Islam in France.

For Tariq Ramadan it is essential that the movement that inspired him be seen in terms of his own particular perspective. For someone who is aware of the harm done by the Muslim Brotherhood’s fundamentalism – and I am referring not only to the violence but to the fanaticism that Tariq Ramadan considers as wholly legitimate – it is frightening to hear him explain to European Muslims that the “extremely critical remarks” made concerning his grandfather are to be accounted for by the fact that his “national liberation movement” was a thorn in the side of Westerners.[6]   He points to the fact that the Anglo-Saxon press presented the movement in 1936 in favourable terms, until the day when the Muslim Brotherhood stood up against “the Zionist presence in Palestine”: “It is quite clear that once it became evident that there was popular support for the Brotherhood’s stance, they began to cast suspicions on Hassan al-Banna’s activities, to spread rumours about him, and disparage the movement as a whole.”[7] A way of implying that all the criticisms made of al-Banna and the Brotherhood were the result of a campaign of lies designed to protect the Zionist interests. In fact, what we can conclude from all of this is that Time magazine – which was to designate Ramadan as one of “the leading lights” in the year 2000 – was even at this early stage not particularly perspicacious….

It is true that during al-Banna’s time, the British government and King Farouk thought they could make use of the Muslim Brotherhood as a counterweight to the Egyptian left and the Wafd. According to Olivier Carré and Michel Seurat, they even received a formal grant of 500 Egyptian pounds from the Suez Canal Company, a building permit for a first meeting place, as well as a mosque under their control.   These findings emerged in researching the first bulletins published by the Brotherhood in which al-Banna attempted to explain things to his companions. According to Carré and Seurat: “Banna, who would subsequently deny the gifts from the Canal Company, began by trying to justify what he had done in the eyes of his companions, who expressed their indignation, and took leave of him.”[8]   Subsequently, al-Banna would simply state that he had never received any such gifts. A Muslim Brother then is free to lie or change what he has said, if it serves his purpose. At any rate, that’s one aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood’s past that Tariq Ramadan is by no means eager to remember when speaking to an anti-globalist audience – or even to an audience of Islamists that he wants to convince of the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had always, from the very beginning, been a movement of resistance against colonialism. The Muslim Brotherhood did in fact take part in the putsch organized by the army officers that liberated Egypt from the yoke of colonialism, but this liberation was only a phase dictated by the immediate context. Egyptian independence was never, for the Brotherhood, an end is itself, but a prelude to the setting up of an Islamic dictatorship.

The Brotherhood’s participation in the struggle for independence has in addition been considerably exaggerated by the movement’s propaganda. But even in the course of their attempts to falsify history, certain partisans of the Brotherhood revealed to what extent al-Banna was above all obsessed by the idea of re-instituting Islamic values. To that end he was prepared to negotiate with any government whatsoever. In 1946, for instance, he was in the thick of negotiations to obtain the right to publish a daily, and to acquire land on which to construct his propaganda Centers, when the Communists set off a massive wave of strikes in the Cairo textile industry in order to force the British to leave the country. The Communist “Committee to Liberate the Nation” asked al-Banna to send his troops to join in the general strike scheduled for February 21st, but al-Banna refused, because he did not want to jeopardize the ongoing negotiations, but also out of deep-rooted suspicion of the Communists. On the given day, a number Brothers disregarded instructions, and joined up anyway with the strikers. Bypassed by the rank and file, al-Banna finally consented to call for a strike on the following days, but refused to join in the collective movement, which then fell apart.[9] It was not until 1948 that al-Banna decided in earnest to organize joint demonstrations with the Communists against the British occupying forces. It was an alliance dictated by the circumstances – and one which did not last for long. In the same year (1948), al-Banna still included the Communists in the lengthy list of enemies who were conspiring against the Brothers : “World-wide Judaism, and international communism, the colonial powers, and the advocates of atheism and moral degeneracy – they all, from the very first day, considered the Brothers and their message as major obstacles.[10]

Caroline Fourest

Brother Tariq The doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan

Capture decran 2015-07-08 à 12.17.00

[1] Oliviers Carré, Michel Seurat, Les Frères musulmans, op. cit., p.11

[2] Quoted by Tariq Ramadan, Aux sources du renouveau musulmans, op. cit., p. 11.

[3] Hassan al-Banna, Epitre aux jeunes [Epistle to the Young]. 

[4] The quotes that follow are all taken from Hassan al-Banna, “Les cinquante demandes du programmes des Frères Musulmnas (1936) [The Fifty Demands of the Muslim Brotherhood Program of 1936], Islam de France, no. 8, October 2000.

[5] Interview with Michel Renard, 12 January 2004.

[6] Tariq Ramadan cassette, “Courants de la pensée musulmane contemporaine: Hassan al-Banna”.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Olivier Carré, Michel Seurat, Les Frères musulmans, op. cit.,p. 18

[9] In Hassan al-Banna. Visions et Missions, Thameem Ushama, a Brotherhood historian, took offense at the idea that the “enemies” of the Brotherhood had used this episode to discredit them, but does not deny the facts.

[10] Hassan al-Banna, Al-qawl al-fasl [Last Words], 1948, et Al-Bayân [Declaration], 1948, two posthumous brochures quoted in R. SA’îd, Hassan…, p. 149. Commented in Olivier Carré, Michel Seurat, Le Fréres Musulmans, op. cit., p. 32.

CRIMINALIZE SALAFISM AND BAN ORGANIZATIONS LINKED TO THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

~ mohamedsifaouiforikhwan ~ Leave a comment

Criminalize salafism and ban organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood

06.07.2015 Mohamed Sifaoui

In the ideological struggle against promoters of Islamist totalitarianism the international community, and in particular major democracies, have displayed their incoherence and cruel lack of courage.

For many years now, in spite of the howls of outrage, I have been calling for the criminalization of the Salafist ideology, as well as purely and simply for the banning of organizations which draw their inspiration from the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood. This double objective should be one for all democrats who believe in secularism and aspire to live at ease in a society where violence and terrorism are banned. This double objective would also preserve order of the Republic and guarantee the compatibility of Islam with the Republic. It must be made quite clear that if today in some respects Islam poses a problem it is because it is being taken over by two nihilistic ideologies, i.e. the Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood ideologies. In other words, although the majority of Muslims are peaceful and aspire to a quiet life, the visible and active associations, currents and organizations are dominated by these two ideologies.

The criminalization of Salafism and banning of organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood are justified by arguments based on three objective reasons.

First the political level. These two ideologies, as we see every day, represent a threat for social cohesion. They divide and segment society, including by the use of violence. Although the actions of Salafists can be observed every day, the unavowed aims of the Muslim Brotherhood need to be decoded. But whatever their approach, their aim is to provoke the breakdown of social ties. As proof of their harmfulness we need only observe their actions and behaviour in so called Muslim countries where they often the create disorder and chaos, even when confronting despicable regimes.

Second the ideological level. These two Sunni currents (the same could be said for the Shiite fundamentalists) are totalitarian ideologies – in many ways fascist – incompatible with the letter and spirit of the democratic corpus which they are trying to annihilate and reduce to ashes. An objective and critical study of Salafist or Muslim Brotherhood texts lead to the following observation. Whether the Islamist group goes by the name of Hamas (Muslim Brotherhood) in Gaza or Daech (Salafists) in Raqqa, whether the enemy bears the name of Israel, America or France, the barbaric treatment they inflict on their own fellow believers suffices to illustrate the fascist and nihilistic character of these ideologies.

Lastly the legal level. These two ideologies are crimogenic. At the very least, wherever they are strongly represented, they are a threat to public security. And from this viewpoint it would be naïve to think that the violent character of Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood only manifests itself in terrorist acts. Violence is consubstantial to both ideologies. Violence against religious, spiritual, sexual, philosophical minorities. Verbal and written violence, physical violence, but also violence through humiliation, behaviour, and lastly violence through the demonization, excommunication or rejection of real or perceived “difference”. Both ideologies are openly or covertly anti Semitic, homophobic, misogynous, promoting violence and hate in the texts and speeches of most of their representatives.

Some people are sceptical about this. Some noble minds might think we are excessive, extreme and intolerant. I am prepared to accept such criticism on condition that they explain how we should deal with the dogmas which structure these two ideologies.

Do we at least know what they think of the society that we defend?

A few reminders:

Regarding democracy, the Muslim Brotherhood has always rejected this value, whether through the voice of their founder Hassan el Banna or through prominent figures of the movement such as Sayed Qutb or Al Maududi in Pakistan. They all consider that sovereignty must belong to God and not the people. The Islamists consider that all the laws required to rule society exist within the Islamic corpus through the Kuran and the Sunna (the tradition of the Prophet). The few “evolutions” consented by the Brotherhood accepted the idea of a sort of democracy controlled by and subject to religious law, the Sharia. For the fundamentalist Brotherhood Islamic legislation takes precedence over the laws “invented by man” and is non negotiable. If in doubt, one only needs to read or re-read the Brotherhood’s slogan: “God is our objective. The Prophet Mahomet is our leader. The Kuran is our law. The jihad is our way”. As for the Salafists, they are more explicit, but at least they have the merit of being less hypocritical than the Muslim Brotherhood and do not try to dissimulate. They clearly and unreservedly reject democracy.

One of their current spiritual leaders, the Jordanian Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, wrote in the years 2000 a text entitled “Democracy is a religion” in which he qualified democracy as a “religion different from the religion of Allah”. He described it as a “new religion of infidels whose members are either legislating lords or followers who worship them”.

Another ideologist, Shaikh Muqbil, a Yemeni trained in Saudi Arabia, declared in one of his sermons “Democracy is a miscreance. We do not need democracy. What does it involve? That people are given the opportunity to govern themselves, that is to say without the Book (Kuran) and without Sunna (the tradition of the Prophet) Democracy votes in favour of pornography; in some infidel countries they voted to allow a man to marry another man. Democracy is despicable. It treats the pious and the perverse equally”.   We can’t be any clearer.

To understand the views of the Muslim Brotherhood on secularism we need only read Hassanel Banna or listen carefully to Tariq Ramadan, his grandson, who is also the media representative of his thoughts. The founder of the extremist Brotherhood declared: “Islam is faith and cult, homeland and citizenship, religion and State, spirituality and action, Book and sword…” This slogan is today taken up by Tariq Ramadan who summarizes it in one sentence: “Islam is all-encompassing”. Therefore, no separation between the temporal and the spiritual for the followers of this fundamentalist creed the advocates of which are adept at hiding behind their modern day language and business suits.

The same vision for the Salafists. An example of their position on secularism: a text written by an Algerian ideologist Mohamed Ferkous. He writes: “secularism is a fashionable ideology which aims to isolate the influence of religion on life”, and concludes: “religion and power are inseparable and have been since the very first day the Muslim society was founded.. Islam does not tolerate atheism and does not recognize the freedom to combat the religion of Allah and his precepts. He refuses that the principle of freedom allows religious education and moral values to be put aside”.

Also, if Salafism and the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood do not recognize two of the principal universal values, where do they stand on other principles? Women’s rights for example? On this subject one of the major figures of Salafism, Sheikh Otheimine, a leading reference of Saudi Wahhabism, recommends that “Muslim women can only leave their homes when authorized by their husband or guardian”.   He even specifies quite seriously that “Women are free inside the home, they can go into all the rooms and do housework”. He also orders: “These women must fear Allah and reject corrupting Western propaganda!”

It would be a mistake to believe that the followers of the Muslim Brotherhood are far from sharing this vision. Very recently, in 2013, the Brotherhood announced in Egypt that giving too many rights to women and considering them equal to men would lead to “the total destruction of society”. If that were not enough to convince us, we need only read again the “advice” of Yusuf al-Qardawi, the spiritual leader of the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), the predicators who defend the Brotherhood’s ideology in France, and all the associations which identify with this ideology. In his book “The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam” al-Qardawi states that a husband whose wife rebels against him may “beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas. This remedy is effective with some women, in special circumstances and as a last resort…”

I defy anyone who cares to, to tell me which article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be respected by Salafism or by the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. Not a single one. There is not one single fundamental principle which is compatible with Islamist ideas, and that is the sad reality. And anything else that certain representatives – especially of the Muslim Brotherhood – might say is poppycock. At least the Salafists publicly acknowledge their rejection of modernity and universal values, as well as calling for breaking all ties with a society which is not governed by Salafist principles.

Commenting the dogma of “Alliance and Disavowal” Shaykh Fawzan, a Salafist leader, states that it is “forbidden to try to resemble non-believers, whether it is their customs, idols, dress or behaviour”. Even worse, he recommends that non-believers “are not to be aided”, nor “praised or defended” and “their culture or civilization must not be praised”. In other words, it is forbidden to say or write that democracy is a wonderful value. According to this ideologist that would annul Islam.

In light of this, at the very moment when a meeting at the Ministry of the Interior with the new “forum of dialogue with Islam of France” is due to begin, the above observations, which are far from showing the full picture, must be a wake up call for us to shake off our collective lethargy which we sink into whenever the subject of Islamism comes up. Confronted with this phenomenon we must elicit a firm response from republican and democratic principles, and it is possible to do this. Republicans must be steadfast in our defense of these principles, all the more so because it is the same lethargy, the same laxness, the same fear, the same complexes, the desire for social peace at the cost of all sorts of compromise (albeit for noble and praiseworthy reasons), that shady organizations like the UOIF have been able to predicate in favour of the veil or that small criminal groups have been able to indoctrinate the Merahs and Kouachis of our society.

Today we can no longer be content with declarations made in front of TV cameras, we can no longer tolerate these “representatives” of Islam of France – who are of no use whatsoever, except to awarded silly medals.

The government must impose far higher demands. It is intolerable that an association like UOIF for example is allowed to exploit republican naivety.

Before entering into a serious dialogue with so called religious organizations a prerequisite could be set, namely the signature of a charter whereby these organizations would undertake to denounce unconditionally all acts of violence in France and abroad in the name Islam, to reject all extremist interpretations which validate, explicitly or indirectly, terrorism and/or hate towards others, a strict respect of all the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular those concerning freedom of conscience, the freedom to believe or not to believe, to change religion or not to have any religion and, within the framework of the laws of the Republic, freedom of opinion, of expression and creation, as well as total adherence to republican values, in particular to the secular and democratic corpus and to women’s rights, to name just a few of these values.

Failure to respect this republican minimum would, including from a legal point of view, justify the criminalization of the Salafist ideology and the banning of organizations and associations promoting the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mohamed Sifaoui

This post is also available in Français and in ربية .

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S SEVEN SINS

~ samtenganesha ~ Leave a comment

The Muslim Brotherhood’s seven sins

04.07.2015 La rédaction

Not being able to run a country is one thing, but turning against it is something completely different. The Muslim Brotherhood could have conceivably survived the ineptness of its year in office, but what brought the group to its knees was its decision to hang on to power at any cost.

Rewind to 26 June 2013, the day Mohamed Morsi delivered a catastrophic speech at the Nasr City Conference Hall  just one week before he was removed from office. In his speech, an agitated Morsi told his supporters to rally for battle, to squash political enemies, to defend his rule against all opponents.

This was the Muslim Brotherhood’s first sin. When push came to shove, its leaders denied that they could not rule alone. Regimes fall when those in power refuse to see the writing on the wall.

Morsi had just turned down a request for early presidential elections that could have kept the Muslim Brotherhood in the game, if not in power. A national campaign had managed to collect millions of signatures calling for early presidential elections, but the Muslim Brotherhood acted as if none of this was its concern.

Its ironclad organisational discipline and immense resources would save it from the crisis, the Muslim Brotherhood thought, with disastrous consequences.

Well-informed sources say that the Muslim Brotherhood made plans to throw members of the civil opposition in prison the day after the 30 June demonstrations were held. Lists of the people to be detained were prepared even before Morsi took to the stage in Nasr City and threatened his opponents with fire and brimstone.

The opposition had made three demands: replacement of Public Prosecutor Talaat Abdallah with someone approved by the Supreme Judiciary Council; dismissal of Hesham Qandil’s government and its replacement with one led by a consensual figure; and the holding presidential elections.

In hindsight, any attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood to meet the opposition halfway could have defused the crisis, putting the country on a totally different course. But the Muslim Brotherhood was not in the mood to compromise.

Morsi, it is said, was not the one calling the shots. In fact, it is believed that he would have opted for a compromise to defuse the tensions. Or at least this is what he told army strongman Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi in a private encounter back then. But anything the two men agreed upon was forgotten on 26 June, the day Morsi delivered his last public speech.

In hindsight, this shouldn’t have come as a surprise. The decisions Morsi made were dictated to him by the Moqattam-based Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Office.

On 1 June 2013, two days before the protests that changed the country’s political course, three Arab figures visited the Guidance Office to try to talk sense into Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Mohamed Badie. One was Tunisia’s Rached Ghannouchi, the Ennahda leader. Another was Monir Shafiq, a key Palestinian intellectual figure. And the third was Khayr Al-Din Hasib, an Iraqi public figure and founder of the Arab National Conference.

The three failed in their mission, for the Muslim Brotherhood had made up its mind. Muslim Brotherhood leaders were not open to a political settlement. Their hold on the country was unshakable, and power-sharing was the last thing on their minds.

According to its allies in the Nour Party, the Muslim Brotherhood grabbed more than 10,000 government jobs within only a few months. Its lack of interest in power-sharing was shocking, more so to its friends than foes. This was the Muslim Brotherhood’s second sin.

On 30 June, the Muslim Brotherhood’s third sin surfaced. As millions marched to demand an end to its rule, the group became even more adamant. It claimed that the protests were Photoshopped. It claimed that the signatures demanding early elections were fakes. It claimed that, if it so desired, it could bring even larger numbers of protesters into the streets.

Instead of understanding the country and rallying to the middle of the political spectrum, the Muslim Brotherhood travelled a path of its own, ending up in a political wilderness  befriending only the Islamists, and edging closer to known terrorists.

The Muslim Brotherhood confused Sharia for legitimacy, forgot the goals of the revolution and played down public outrage, and thus ended with no tangible political support.

Then it went into denial, which was its fourth sin. The Muslim Brotherhood refused to admit that its failure to run the country was at the heart of its unpopularity. It refused to see that its failure to engage in serious partnership was wrecking its chances.

When public outrage led to one of history’s clearest moments of revolt, the Muslim Brotherhood lost its senses. With its fate in the balance, the Muslim Brotherhood decided that its future was better ensured by relying on US and Western support than on Egypt’s ballot boxes. This was its fifth sin.

At a time when it was clear that the Muslim Brotherhood was losing its grip on power, the group pretended  with a little help from foreign friends  that it could ride out the storm.

The Muslim Brotherhood was also convinced that the army would not interfere in the power struggle. Perhaps because of US assurances, relayed by US Ambassador Anne Patterson to Khairat Al-Shater, the Muslim Brotherhood concluded that it could afford to challenge the entire nation.

What the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t understand is that the army’s decision to intervene wasn’t the decision of one man alone, but of an institution that Morsi once praised as composed of “men made of gold.” The Muslim Brotherhood also ignored the fact that millions in this country were clearly asking the army to intervene. Indeed, some members of the opposition were at this point accusing the army leadership of dragging its feet.

Because of US promises, however, the Muslim Brotherhood hardened its position. In fact, Al-Shater threatened then Defence Minister Al-Sisi that the country would erupt in civil war in the event of army intervention. This threat was made in a meeting on 24 June. Two days later, Morsi repeated the same threat in his speech in Nasr City.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s sixth sin came right after that. When the army removed Morsi from power, the Muslim Brotherhood still had a chance to admit its errors and go for some sort of damage limitation. But it didn’t.

This was its last chance, and the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t take it. One of its leaders, former parliamentary speaker Mohamed Saad Al-Katatni, suggested a meeting with other political players to discuss the roadmap. But the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders didn’t go along.

Had the Muslim Brotherhood sought a compromise solution at this point, early elections could have been arranged, even without dissolving the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Shura Council or suspending the Muslim Brotherhood-authored constitution.

This was the Muslim Brotherhood’s last chance for damage limitation. But the group opted instead for violence, rejecting any political compromise.

This, the option of violence, was the Muslim Brotherhood’s seventh sin. It launched the Muslim Brotherhood down a path of sabotage against the state and its institutions, a path that was bloody for others but most fatal to the group itself.

These sins are of such magnitude that no presidential pardon can absolve them. These crimes are not ones that any court can ignore. Even if all the charges against criminals such as Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood associates were dropped, these sins cannot be forgiven, for they are written in history and live in the memory of millions. And there is nothing the Muslim Brotherhood  or its American, European, Turkish or Qatari friends can do to change this.

Al-Ahram Weekly
Saturday, July 4, 2015

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC THOUGHT

~ samtenganesha ~ Leave a comment

International Institute of Islamic Thought

03.07.2015 La rédaction

IIIT was established in 1977  during the Islamist conference in Lugano, Switzerland. The organizers were member of the Egyptian Brotherhood such as Jamal Bazinji, Dr. Hisham Yahya Altalib, Dr. Abdul Hamid Ahmad Abu Sulayman.

Yousef al-Qaradawi participated at this meeting.

So did Youssef Nada, Muslim brotherhood banker.

The Institute was established in the United States of America in 1981. The headquarters of the Institute are situated in Herndon, Virginia, in the suburbs of Washington DC. The Institute is governed by a Board of Trustees that meets regularly and periodically elects one of its members to serve as President.

The organization publishes Islamist books such as those of Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi.

The Muslim Brotherhood confirmed that the International Institute of Islamic Thought was one of its organisations. Read : USA Muslim Brotherhood Organisations.

International Institute of Islamic Thought figures

Jamal Barzinji  served as the IIIT Vice President for Research and Publications. He is identified by the american authorities as one of the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US. In 2003 his home was raided because of his links with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and also with Hamas.

Tarik Hamdi, employed by IIIT gave cell phone supplies to Osama Bin Laden, according to a former U.S. Treasury Department official in 2002.

“Tarik Hamdi, an IIIT employee, personally provided bin Laden with the battery for the satellite phone prosecutors at the New York trial of the East Africa Embassy bombers described as “the phone bin Laden and other will use to carry out their war against the United States.””* (U.S. Senate committee )

IIIT employed Bashir Musa Nafi, founder of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He was deported from the US in 1996 for immigration fraud and barred for 5 years.

“Both SAAR (Sheikh SuleimanAbdel Aziz al-Rajh) and IIIT are also suspected of financing HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), including the World and Islamic Studies Enterprise (WISE) and the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP), PIJ fronts since closed in Florida.” ** (U.S. Senate committee )

The co-founder and Finance Director Hisham Al-Talib worked for the Al-Taqwa Bank run by Muslim Brotherhood member Youssef Nada. He is an irakian Muslim Brother.

Ishaq Farhan member of the Islamic Action Front (Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood’s political party) was an IIIT official from 2005 to 2007.

International Institute of Islamic Thought visitors

• H.E. Pehin Dato Mohammad Yasmin Umar, Minister of Energy, Brunei visited IIIT on June 7th, 2014. He gave a short talk to the Summer Students.

• Rachid Ghannouchi, co-founder of the En-Nahda Movement, Tunisia, visited IIIT on Wednesday, February 26, 2014.

• Mr. Saadine El Othman, a former Foreign Minister of Morocco, currently President of Justice and Development Party, visited IIIT on Monday, February 3, 2014

• On September 24, 2012 Dr. Hisham Altalib and Dr. Abubaker Al Shingieti – IIIT, met with President Mohamad Mursi of Egypt in New York on  in the context of an interfaith meeting. President Mursi welcomed the participation of IIIT in the reform of “higher education in Egypt”.

International Institute of Islamic Thought network

• Branches and offices have also been established in a number of capitals world-wide in order to carry out the Institute’s activities and programs. The International Institute of Islamic Thought has offices in France, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Lebanon, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, India, Bangladesh, Brunei and the United Kingdom.

• Georgetown University presents the IIIT as a regular center without mentioning its problematic links.

• Dr. Anas Al-Shaikh-Ali, Director and Academic Advisor, IIIT London Office, has been recognised in the Queen’s Birthday Honours list for June 2009 by being awarded a CBE (Commander of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire). The citation in The London Gazette reads as follows:“Dr. Anas Al-Shaikh Ali, Academic Advisor, London Office, International Institute of Islamic Thought.  For Services to Community Relations.”

This post is also available in العربية.

EGYPT’S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KILLED IN CAIRO BOMB ATTACK

~ samtenganesha ~ Leave a comment

Egypt’s public prosecutor killed in Cairo bomb attack

29.06.2015 La rédaction

Egypt’s public prosecutor was wounded by a bomb that targeted his car on Monday, judicial and medical sources said.

This morning state news agency MENA said Hisham Barakat had “light injuries” as a result of the bomb, which exploded while his convoy was driving through the Cairo residential district of Heliopolis.

Around 3 PM, Hisham Barakat died.

Source : http://thecairopost.youm7.com

This post is also available in العربية and Français .

FOR THE WASHINGTON POST NO LINKS BETWEEN VIOLENCE IN EGYPT AND MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

~ samtenganesha ~ Leave a comment

For the Washington Post no links between violence in Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood

29.06.2015 La rédaction

In a paper, Erin Cunningham and Brian Murphy of the Washington Post considered that nothing proved a link between the violence in Egypt and the Muslim brotherhood.

“There is no direct ties between the insurgents and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which led the country for more than a year until massive street protests in 2013. But the insurgent factions have stepped up pressures on the military-supported government that succeeded Morsi.”

The paper on the attack which targeted a convoy carrying prosecutor general Hisham Barakat in an upscale area of Cairo Monday morning. Muslim Brotherhood officials previously declared :

“We should exterminate all oppressors from Egypt. That is, government and opponents of the Muslim Brothers. In other words, the millions of people who demonstrated against president Morsi.” *

The Washington Post has recently been accused by Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam  of waging a “vicious campaign” and voicing “open incitement” against Egypt in the service of “terror organizations” such as the Muslim Brotherhood. **

‘AL-AHRAM’ EDITOR: ‘WASHINGTON POST’ WAGING A VICIOUS CAMPAIGN AGAINST AL-SISI REGIME IN SERVICE OF MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

~ samtenganesha ~ Leave a comment

‘Al-Ahram’ Editor: ‘Washington Post’ Waging A Vicious Campaign Against Al-Sisi Regime In Service Of Muslim Brotherhood

22.06.2015 La rédaction

In an article titled “Political Pamphlets in an American Paper,” the editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, slammed the U.S.’s Washington Post for its frequent attacks on the Egyptian regime since the ouster of former Egyptian president Muhammad Mursi. According to ‘Allam, the Washington Post is waging a “vicious campaign” and voicing “open incitement” against Egypt in the service of “terror organizations” such as the Muslim Brotherhood. This, while refraining from criticizing human rights violations or the absence of press freedom in countries like Turkey and Qatar.[1]

The following are excerpts from the article:[2]

Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam (image: ahram.org.eg)

“No country in the world [other than Egypt] receives so much attention in Washington Post editorials, which are full of a strange and pathetic fury over this country’s domestic affairs – to an extent that indicates the existence of a vast lobby behind these articles, whose number has broken every record in the last few months.

“The press inside and outside Egypt is entitled to write whatever it wants, and we have a right to tell [our] critics that the strength and the reputation of a great country that is undergoing a process of rehabilitation are not a ‘toy’ in the hands of interests groups that hammer the readers over the head every morning with editorials that constitute a vicious campaign. [This campaign] first of all undermines the faith in the changes that are currently happening in Egypt, and in its economic growth on the eve of the opening of the new Suez Canal in less than two months.

“The ongoing and widespread use of terms such as ‘oppressive state’ and ‘tyranny’ in this big American paper’s editorials [about Egypt] constitutes open incitement against the Egyptian state and against its judiciary, which is presented as a [mere] tool in the hands of the regime. [This criticism] is part of an ongoing attempt by some Western media to kill the rule of law [in Egypt] in favor of terrorist organizations that have become masters of deception, cheating and killing in the name of religion [namely the Muslim Brotherhood].

“During this period, we did not find in this widely-distributed American paper even one investigative article about the ideological roots of the culture that [condones] violence and opposes the nation state. [This is the culture of] the groups of political Islam, which have been the eternal allies of the U.S. and Britain since the 1920s. We never saw [in this paper] a single report about the deadly violence against Egypt’s civilians, police officers and military personnel. At the same time, there is plenty of sympathy and compassion for the Muslim Brotherhood and its leaders, who have fled to Arab and foreign countries in order to spread their endless poison. These are the same leaders against whom millions of angry [Egyptians] came out in the June 30 revolution.

“The Egyptian people left the handling of this issue to the police and the military, and let them deal with this group that is undermining the abilities of the nation states. [So far], we have not seen or heard that any of the imaginary assessments regarding the imminent collapse of the [Egyptian] state and the shattering of its foundations have come to pass. These papers’ efforts to spread [these assessments] is an open game, which most Egyptians receive with a sarcastic smile and with pity for these foreign reporters and for their Egyptian collaborators who see only what they want to see, while ignoring reality.

“The American paper displays overt hostility towards Egypt in its editorials, but it does not dare direct criticism at countries that never practiced democracy [at all]… [This,] out of concern for American interests and in order to avoid clashing with interest groups inside [the U.S.] that are close to those countries. Had the paper been fair, it would have discussed the issue of human rights and freedom of the press in Turkey, [or] the issue of the foreign laborers in Qatar, just as it addresses the situation in Egypt.

“The Egyptians practical response to this paper’s claims in recent days regarding empty promises [made by President Al-Sisi] will come when we invite papers from around the world to attend the inauguration ceremony of the new Suez Canal and the vast projects associated with it. Then we will see the promises that the president has undertaken [to fulfill] for the sake of his people – while other people justify the crimes of the terrorists between the lines [of their articles] and want the circle of bloodshed to widen and grow. The response of the [Egyptian] state and people in the coming months will expose the campaign of lies and deception that has been waged in Washington by fugitives from Egyptian justice and by agents [of various parties]. [This campaign] is waged on recruited websites and papers and in foreign papers that are more concerned with destroying the abilities of the Egyptian state than in supporting the interests of their countries.

“The ‘political pamphlet’ press will fall, even if it originates in the capitals of the very countries that gave rise to the theory of democracy and turned the Arab East into hell. And in case you have forgotten, let us remind you of the crime of your silence over the Iraq war and of what your people did in Abu Ghraib prison, or the disasters that later befell the Arab world!”

Endnotes:

[1] In an article published in Al-Ahram on June 22, columnist Ahmad ‘Abd Al-Tawwab likewise attacked “some large newspapers around the world that lean in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood” and that have lately been harshly criticizing the Al-Sisi regime and calling it a “coup regime.” According to ‘Abd Al-Tawwab, these papers deliberately harm the reputation of the Al-Sisi regime and blame it for things that are not its fault, with the aim of evoking sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood. He added that these papers attack Egypt because certain countries “unfriendly to Egypt” have lately purchased shares in them, and also because they are influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood’s global lobby. He accused the papers of “committing shameful crimes” and called to hold them accountable. He added that he could understand why Egypt is taking this matter so lightly, and called it to confront the “deliberate attack and the fabrications.”

[2] Al-Ahram (Egypt), June 18, 2015.

Source : Memri

PRO-MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD CLERICS CALL TO OVERTHROW AL-SISI REGIME IN EGYPT, RESTORE MURSI TO PRESIDENCY

~ samtenganesha ~ Leave a comment

Pro-Muslim Brotherhood Clerics Call To Overthrow Al-Sisi Regime In Egypt, Restore Mursi To Presidency

17.06.2015 La rédaction

On May 27, 2015, a group of 159 pro-Muslim Brotherhood (MB) clerics and 10 pro-MB religious bodies from across the Arab and Muslim world posted a document clarifying “the position of the shari’a on the [current] Egyptian regime.” The document was posted on the Nida Al-Kinana (“Egypt Call”) website, which was launched specifically for this purpose. It states that the current Egyptian regime is a “criminal and murderous” regime that has “betrayed the homeland and the faith,” and therefore Egyptians have a religious obligation to come out against it and strive for its complete elimination “using the appropriate means, such as civil disobedience.” The document also calls for the release of Muhammad Mursi, whom it calls the legitimate elected president. 

The document stresses that anyone proved to be involved in killing innocent people is guilty of murder and must be subjected to the relevant shari’a punishment (i.e., put to death), and this includes judges, media figures and politicians. Directing specific accusations against the Sheikh of Al-Azhar and the Mufti of Egypt, it states that they backed the regime’s actions against the Muslim Brotherhood, which makes them complicit in the regime’s crimes, with all that this entails in terms of the shari’a. 

Finally, the document calls on all the Arab and Muslim countries, as well as on academics and liberals, to act immediately to protect Egypt from “the crimes of this tyrannical regime,” and condemns the countries that support it. 

The document is signed by 10 MB-affiliated religious bodies from across the Muslim world, including the Sunni Scholars Association, the Council of Palestinian Scholars Abroad, the Lebanon Muslim Scholars Committee, the Mauritania Seminary for Clerics, the Mauritania Forum of Clerics and Imams, the Council of Clerics in the Arab Maghreb, the Al-Azhar International Clerics Union, the Egyptian Preachers Union, the Forum of Clerics against the Coup, and the Sudanese Clerics Council.

The signatories to the document are prominent figures affiliated with or supportive of the MB, including religious university heads and lecturers, heads of Islamic councils and bodies, preachers and former ministers. They come from a variety of Muslim countries across the world, including India, Turkey, Morocco, Yemen, Libya, Mauritania, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Among them are Dr. Ahmed Al-Raissouni, deputy head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars; ‘Abd Al-Majid Al-Zindani, head of the Yemeni Clerics Council; Sheikh Salman Al-Husseini Al-Nadawi, president of Imam Ahmad University in India; Sheikh Muhammad Zahal, head of the Council of Clerics in the Arab Maghreb; former Yemeni justice minister ‘Abd Al-Wahhab Al- Dilmi; Jamal ‘Abd Al-Sattar, a da’wa lecturer at Al-Azhar and the head of the Sunni Scholars Association; and Muhammad Al-Hassan Al-Dado, head of the Mauritania Seminary for Clerics.   

Over half a million people have indicated their support of the document on the Egypt Call website. 

Responding to the document on its official website, the MB welcomed it and thanked the clerics for “coming out against the crimes” of the “coup regime.” Conversely, spokesmen for the Egyptian regime, as well as some other figures and movements in Egypt, harshly condemned the document and the calls therein, and warned the Egyptians not to heed them.   

The following are translated excerpts from the document, and from some of the responses to it. 
Some of the clerics signed to the document (source: facebook.com/IkhwanWorld/photos)

The Clerics’ Document: “It Is The Duty Of The Ummah… To Oppose This Regime” 

“Announcement by the religious scholars of the [Muslim] ummah regarding the crimes of the Egyptian coup and the measures to be taken regarding it:

“In light of what has been happening in Egypt for about two years, which includes [acts of] shedding forbidden [i.e., Muslim] blood, violating the honor of chaste women, killing innocents, usurping property, vandalizing private assets, destroying the land, driving peaceful people [from their homes], and showing flagrant hostility towards Islam and the Muslims, manifested in a war against the path [of Islam] and against the religious scholars, in harming the values, principles and sanctities [of Islam], and in allying with its enemies while being hostile towards its loyalists – [in light of all this], and out of a desire to publically announce the truth and renounce falsehood, and clarify [the matter] to the people, as Allah commanded, we, [the undersigned,] hereby proclaim to the ummah the position of the shari’a on this [Egyptian] regime and the measures that must be taken regarding it:

“1. The current Egyptian regime is a criminal and murderous regime that staged a coup against the will and the choice of the ummah and abducted its legitimate elected president. The commander of the coup usurped the presidency in fictitious and fake elections, and concentrated all the powers in his own hands, including the power to legislate and pass arbitrary laws that silence people and completely eliminate their source of livelihood. This regime has unlawfully killed thousands of people; arrested tens of thousands without cause; sentenced thousands of people from among the best men and women of Egypt to imprisonment and death in fake trials; deported thousands of people… and displaced thousands of families; aided the enemies of the ummah against it; arbitrarily dismissed hundreds of judges, university lecturers, teachers, imams, preachers and others…, and violated every [religious] prohibition.

“2. According to the shari’a, it is the duty of the ummah – its leaders and its people – to oppose this regime and strive for its complete elimination by all legitimate means, in order to protect the principles of the ummah and the supreme goals of Islam.

“3. Striking an alliance with the Zionist aggressors [and] protecting and defending them, while showing hostility to the Palestinian resistance, conspiring against it and besieging it by destroying Sinai and deporting its people – all these constitute treason against the faith  and the homeland and contempt for the way of the Prophet…

“4. Any leaders, judges, officers, soldiers, media figures or politicians, and anyone [else] who is definitely proved to be involved (even if only through incitement) in violating the honor of women, shedding the blood of innocents and unlawful killing – [all these] are murderers according to the shari’a, and must be punished according to the shari’a.

“5. The undersigned clerics stress that Dr. Muhammad Mursi is the legitimate president of the country, that the measures taken against him and the sentence imposed on him and on opponents of the coup lack all validity according to the shari’a and according to [civil] law. [Moreover,] according to the sharia, it is the obligation of the ummah to act to free its elected president.

“6. The ummah must also do its utmost to free all those who were arrested by this criminal regime for opposing the coup and for demanding to respect the will and the liberty of the ummah, especially the women [prisoners], using means that are legitimate according to Islam.

“7. Helping this criminal regime to survive, in any way, is forbidden according to the shari’a, and constitutes a crime according to the [civil] law, and is tantamount to blatant complicity in the crimes [of this regime]…

“8. By being present at this coup and remaining silent in the face of [its] transgressions, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar perpetrated a crime against the shari’a that divests him of his legitimacy and his status and makes him complicit in the acts of the criminals. This is a stain on the glorious history of Al-Azhar, and [also] corrupts its present and destroys its future.

“9. We hold the Mufti of Egypt religiously and legally responsible for the lives of the innocent people whose execution he has approved, and warn him of the consequences should he continue to approve such arbitrary and malicious death sentences… If he approves the killing of innocent people, no excuse will avail him in this world or the next.

“10. Protecting one’s life, honor and property by every legitimate means is a legitimate right and even a religious obligation which nobody is entitled to either grant or deny, for one who is attacked has a duty to come out against his attacker, and [moreover,] he must do so himself, and not through the mediation of another…”

“11. We charge the leaders, monarchs and presidents of the Arab and Muslim countries, as well as the academics and the liberals throughout the world, to take immediate steps to rescue Egypt from the crimes of this tyrannical regime and prevent it from killing, murdering, robbing and corrupting, and to support the will and the choice of the [Egyptian] people.

“12. The undersigned clerics condemn the position of the countries that support the coup, as well as the international position that purports to respect human rights and the choice of the peoples but in practice supports coup regimes and maintains ties with them. [We] hold [these countries and the international community] responsible for the oppressive and aggressive shedding of [innocent] blood…

“13. We charge the power brokers and the free people who oppose the coup, inside and outside Egypt, to stand as one against this criminal regime, while using suitable means, such as civil disobedience, etc., in order to purge the land of the crimes and tyranny of the perpetrators of the coup and protect the blood of the martyrs…”[1]

The MB Welcomes The Call To Topple The Egyptian Regime “By All Means”

In a response on its official website, the MB thanked the clerics for “coming out against the crimes of the army of the coup regime, the last of which was the death sentences imposed on Dr. Muhammad Mursi and hundreds of innocent Egyptians who rose up against the tyranny.” The MB expressed its gratitude to the clerics for clarifying “the religious duty to oppose the coup by all means until it is toppled and the legitimate [Mursi] regime is restored”, and stressed that it is committed to the directives of the shari’a and will follow them, “no matter how much sacrifice” this requires.[2]

MB spokesman Muhammad Muntasir likewise welcomed the cleric’s document, tweeting on his official page: “This is our religion and these are our clerics.”[3] In an article he posted on the MB website on June 8, 2015, which was the first anniversary of ‘Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi’s inauguration, Muntasir congratulated “Egypt’s free revolutionaries” who took to the street that day to declare “that the entire Egyptian people opposes the murderous and discriminatory military coup, and refuses to recognize the arch-murderer [Al-Sisi].” He wrote that, one year after Al-Sisi’s ascension to the presidency, Egypt is suffering economical, security and political ruin, and accused Al-Sisi of “shrinking Egypt’s status and making it a perpetual beggar.” Finally, he called on “Egypt’s revolutionaries” not to stop rebelling against the oppression and the oppressors, to fill the squares and “liberate Egypt from the murderous military [leaders].”[4]

Responses In Egypt: The Clerics’ Document Comes To Sow Chaos, Destroy Egypt

Conversely, the Egyptian establishment and several figures and movements condemned the clerics’ document.  In a May 28, 2015 statement, Dar Al-Ifta, Egypt’s supreme fatwa-issuing body, called the document “incitement against Egypt and its institutions” published by a group of pro-MB clerics “in a desperate attempt to undermine [Egypt’s] stability and security.” Dar Al-Ifta condemned the clerics for calling to eliminate the Egyptian regime and its security apparatuses, judges and media figures, and for presenting this as a “supreme religious commandment.” It added that making such calls is an act of “corrupting the land,” and that “Allah warned against [this act] and set out heavy punishments, in this world and the next, for those who engage in it.” The same goes for the call to free accused terrorists form jail, which is aimed at “sparking chaos, spreading crime and destroying the country,” said Dar Al-Ifta. It warned people not to heed the clerics’ calls to kill innocent Egyptians, noting that the Prophet forbade incitement to murder.

Egyptian Endowments Minister Dr. Muhammad Mukhtar Jum’a called the clerics “perpetrators of crimes against their religion, homeland and ummah,” and urged to place them all on the list of persona non-grata in Egypt and persons wanted for interrogation, and to “purge the state institutions of any remaining [MB supporters].” He also called to designate the International Union of Muslim Scholars, headed by Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi, a terrorist organization and treat its members accordingly.[5]

The deputy sheikh of Al-Azhar, Dr. ‘Abbas Shouman, warned the Egyptians not to heed the clerics’ calls to kill and to destroy the state institutions, but rather to “protect their state and their institutions,” and declared that the signatories to the document “are not clerics but supporters of terrorist organizations.”[6]

Egyptian journalist Wael Al-Abrashi made similar statements in a program on the private Egyptian channel Dream TV. He denounced the clerics’ call to kill all supporters of the current regime, including politicians, media figures and members of the security apparatuses, and added that those who make such calls are ignorant of the course of history, since no regime has ever been toppled by armed terrorism. On the contrary, he said, regimes only grow stronger when terrorism increases, as demonstrated by the case of the Egyptian regime, which enjoys the people’s support. He warned the Egyptians not to be deceived by these calls and to reject them.[7]

The April 6 movement, which opposes the Egyptian regime but also the MB, condemned the document as yet another example of “incitement to be violent and to destroy what remains of the peace within Egyptian society.” It opposed “any hint of [advocating] violence” against members of Egypt’s state apparatuses, and urged all Egyptians, regardless of their affiliation, “to adhere to the path of non-violence and not to be swayed by these calls.”[8]

Endnotes:

[1] Egyptcall.org, May 27, 2015.

[2] Ikhwanonline.com, May 28, 2015.

[3] Twitter.com/montaseregy, May 25, 2015.

[4] Ikhwanonline.com, June 8, 2015.

[5] Alarabiya.net, May 28, 2015.

[6] Tahrirnews.com, June 3, 2015.

[7] Youtube.com/watch?v=Nb0kPUY1TA0, May 30, 2015.

[8] Vetogate.com, June 2, 2015.

Source : Memri

THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD NOT MEET WITH THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN WASHINGTON

~ samtenganesha ~ Leave a comment

The administration should not meet with the Muslim Brotherhood in Washington

11.06.2015 La rédaction

This week, a delegation including two prominent Muslim Brotherhood members will visit Washington to advocate against the current Egyptian government, headed by President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi. While the delegation will likely draw interest from the media and think tank communities, the Obama administration should not engage with it at any level. Given the Brotherhood’s explicit embrace of violence and calls for Sisi’s death, U.S. engagement with the Brotherhood at this time will undermine the administration’s efforts to strengthen relations with Cairo. It will also undercut the administration’s attempts at encouraging the Sisi government toward greater political openness

.The delegation is being hosted by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), which hosted a similar delegation in January, and the Egypt Institute for Democracy Development, an organization that has no web page or social media presence. The delegation includes Wael Haddara, a Canada-based Brotherhood figure who served as an advisor from abroad to the deposed president Mohamed Morsi, and Maha Azzam, who is not a Muslim Brother butchairs the Brotherhood-backed Egyptian Revolutionary Council, which calls from exile for Sisi’s toppling.

The delegation’s most controversial member, however, is Brotherhood leader Amr Darrag, who played a central role in one of the Brotherhood’s most power-hungry – and ultimately costly – decisions during its year in power. Darrag served as secretary-general of the Islamist-dominated Constituent Assembly, which rammed a constitution through to ratification in December 2012. The hasty constitution-writing process came only a week after then president Morsi issued a declaration giving himself unchecked executive authority, and the Brotherhood exacerbated the political crisis by rushing the draft toward a referendum in the absence of non-Islamist parties, which boycotted the assembly to protest Morsi’s blatant power grab. The exclusivist manner in which the constitution was drafted, and its narrow language pertaining to the interpretation of sharia, reinforced widespread fears that the Brotherhood was trying to impose its theocratic vision on Egypt, and contributed to the mass mobilization for Morsi’s overthrow in June 2013.

Engaging Brotherhood officials will undermine the administration’s efforts at strengthening the U.S.-Egypt strategic relationship, which in recent months have in- cluded resuming military aid to Cairo and endorsing a major investment conference in Sharm al-Sheikh. After all, Muslim Brothers frequently call for President Sisi’s execution during their demonstrations, and the Brotherhood has embraced violence openly in recent months. In this vein, the Brotherhood called for “jihad” and “martyrdom” in fighting the Sisi regime in a January 2015 statement, and its social media pages routinely publicize attacks on infrastructure such as roads, trains, and electricity towers. While the administration should work to engage broad sectors of Egyptian society, it should draw the line at dealing with an organization that seeks the outright destruction of an allied government.

Moreover, dealing with the Brotherhood will undercut the Obama administration’s efforts at encouraging the Sisi government toward greater political openness. Indeed, the administration is correct in its analysis that the Sisi government’s crackdown on opposition activists and media, as well as the restrictive environment for NGOs, may once again catalyze a destabilizing political explosion, as in January 2011 and June 2013. By meeting with the Brotherhood, however, the Obama administration will damage its credibility for influencing Egypt in this direction, since the Sisi government and its many supporters will interpret these calls for openness as enabling the Brotherhood’s return to politics – a prospect that the regime and its supporters view as suicidal.

Finally, the administration should learn from its most recent engagement with the Brotherhood, which occurred during the January visit to Washington that CSID organized.While the administration hoped to keep its meetings with Brotherhood officials under wraps, the Brotherhood publicized the meetings, using them as a propaganda tool for encouraging its supporters and challenging the Sisi government’s international legitimacy. Indeed, shortly after the Brothers met U.S. officials at Foggy Bottom, a member of their delegation posted on Facebook a photo of himself in front of the State Department’s logo, and another delegation member later told a pro-Brotherhood satellite network that a White House official had attended that meeting.This embarrassed the Obama administration domestically, and reinforced conspiracy theories within Egypt about the administration’s supposed support for the Brotherhood.The Obama administration should not allow itself to be used as a propaganda tool in the Brotherhood’s ongoing war against the Egyptian government. In short, it shouldn’t let the Brotherhood fool it twice.

Eric Trager is the Wagner Fellow at The Washington Institute.

Source
Washington Jewish Week
Thursday, June 11, 2015