She was very opposed by Nasser, who accused him of trying to assassinate him in 1954. The Muslim Brotherhood has been very violent repression. They gave birth to a whole series of groups in Egypt and abroad. Some violent, committing terrorist acts, a movement like Hamas in Gaza is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Today, Egypt, the organization is illegal, but tolerated. She managed to get elected as an independent label fifth Egyptian MPs in 2005 but the elections of December 2010, believing - rightly - that the voting was rigged, the Muslim Brotherhood withdrew from the competition. They received these days an early recognition, having been involved in the negotiations that the Egyptian government was forced to engage under pressure from opponents.
Yes, the leadership of the Brotherhood is opposed to violence and does not commit attacks. But the Muslim Brotherhood have different trends from those who want to establish an Islamic republic to those who declare themselves Democrats. Sayed Qutb went further than Hassan El-Banna, he supported him, a radical break with the established order.
It was the Egyptian leadership to infidels and pretended to shoot them, like, he said, the prophet who destroyed the pre-Islamic barbarism. Arrested by police Nasser, Qutb was sentenced to death and hanged in 1966. Hassan El-Banna has been executed after the assassination of Prime Minister of Egypt, but Egypt at the time was officially independent since 1922, although the British occupied it in fact.
The Muslim Brotherhood have many graduates, and therefore many skills. Their greatest weakness, however, is the absence of a credible economic program. They do not give the impression of being able to govern Egypt. I think not, indeed, that the Muslim Brotherhood have a credible alternative.
That said, it is not their division that led to prison, I believe it, but the will power to break the organization or to keep it under control. That seems difficult, if not impossible. They would meet with the Egyptian army. Unless we assume an infiltration of the Egyptian army by the Muslim Brotherhood ...
that remains largely to be demonstrated. The Muslim Brotherhood is best known for their charitable and social action in a country that has changed its economic policy since the arrival of Sadat to power, rising gradually from state socialism to liberalism and privatization. The decrease in social welfare has given way to private initiatives, including the Muslim Brotherhood.
Well organized, with vast resources, able to mobilize quickly to help people, as seen for example after an earthquake in Cairo, they are known to be effective. The currency most comprehensive is: "God is our goal, the Prophet our leader, the Koran our constitution, jihad [holy war] our way, and martyrdom our greatest hope." As such, this motto does not seem compatible with democracy, especially in a country with millions of Christian citizens.
Opponents of the regime that triggered the revolt of the month of January are not convinced that. They attribute, as do some analysts, more than 30% of the vote in free elections where the Muslim Brotherhood. But these are only assumptions. The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian regime is Shi'ite.
There is, on some points, for example the Palestinian issue, the convergences between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah (Shiite). But I do not think the Muslim Brotherhood have relations with the Iranian regime. The Brotherhood is committed to the concept of Muslim nation. She is opposed to the Egyptian government policy on Israel.
You know that Egypt is the first Arab country to have made peace with the Jewish state. The Muslim Brotherhood criticize the government for having yielded to Israel, especially regarding the colonization of the West Bank. This does not necessarily mean that the Muslim Brotherhood, if hypothetically they came to power, would trigger a war against Israel.
I am not convinced that the Muslim Brotherhood want to enter a government of national unity and compromise in this way. What they need most now is a recognition, and they obtained a little these days in being associated with the beginning of negotiations between the opposition and the regime.
Israel thinks, but the majority of the Egyptian people is very rise against Israel and against the conciliatory policy of Mr. Mubarak. If the Muslim Brotherhood took part in a national unity government, they would undoubtedly put more pressure on Israel. But to start a war, I do not think so.
There is already a contradiction in the Egyptian Constitution. It says, firstly, that all citizens have equal rights regardless of their religion or beliefs, but she says the same time, in another article, that Islam is the religion of the state and the principles of Sharia are the main source of all laws.
The cohabitation between the two religions is obviously possible, provided to adjust the Constitution and eliminate discrimination that affect the Copts. Within the Muslim Brotherhood, there are differences over the place given to the Copts in the departments of State. Some refuse, for example, a Christian became President of the Republic.
Officially, the Muslim Brotherhood support themselves. Many of the suspect, however, receive significant funding from some countries like Saudi Arabia, although Saudi Arabia is now a support Mubarak regime. Some members of the Muslim Brotherhood tried to create a moderate party, Al-Wasat (Centre), which was banned.
There are indeed in a wing of the Brotherhood younger, more modern, who wants to learn the Turkish governing party, which has evolved in the direction of democracy. But I do not think it is a majority. The Muslim Brotherhood has renounced violence for a long time. Nevertheless, the groups have staged attacks in Egypt, including the Gamaa Islamiya, which assassinated President Anwar Sadat in 1981, had been engendered by the brotherhood.
Today, there is no evidence that the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood sponsorship of violent actions. These are indeed very few in Egypt. The attack a few weeks ago against the faithful gathered in a church in Alexandria was not awarded to the Muslim Brotherhood. Good question. It seems very difficult nowadays to find a political solution in Egypt without the Muslim Brotherhood.
These are not the ones who sparked the revolt for the month of January against the regime, but there are very skillfully rallied, demonstrated their organizational skills on Tahrir Square, have even been at the forefront of those who physically fought the attackers. They take advantage of these events to officially join the political game, getting recognition, freedom to exist as a movement.
Knowing that many of their members were detained and mistreated in prison all these years. Tariq Ramadan is a westernized Muslim intellectual who defends with great subtlety moderate positions. Some accuse him of double game he denies it. His moderate positions, formulated so attractive, do not seem representative of the majority of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is neither their voice nor their flag bearer. Chat moderated by Olivier Biffaud 
Today, Egypt, the organization is illegal, but tolerated. She managed to get elected as an independent label fifth Egyptian MPs in 2005 but the elections of December 2010, believing - rightly - that the voting was rigged, the Muslim Brotherhood withdrew from the competition. They received these days an early recognition, having been involved in the negotiations that the Egyptian government was forced to engage under pressure from opponents.
Yes, the leadership of the Brotherhood is opposed to violence and does not commit attacks. But the Muslim Brotherhood have different trends from those who want to establish an Islamic republic to those who declare themselves Democrats. Sayed Qutb went further than Hassan El-Banna, he supported him, a radical break with the established order.
It was the Egyptian leadership to infidels and pretended to shoot them, like, he said, the prophet who destroyed the pre-Islamic barbarism. Arrested by police Nasser, Qutb was sentenced to death and hanged in 1966. Hassan El-Banna has been executed after the assassination of Prime Minister of Egypt, but Egypt at the time was officially independent since 1922, although the British occupied it in fact.
The Muslim Brotherhood have many graduates, and therefore many skills. Their greatest weakness, however, is the absence of a credible economic program. They do not give the impression of being able to govern Egypt. I think not, indeed, that the Muslim Brotherhood have a credible alternative.
That said, it is not their division that led to prison, I believe it, but the will power to break the organization or to keep it under control. That seems difficult, if not impossible. They would meet with the Egyptian army. Unless we assume an infiltration of the Egyptian army by the Muslim Brotherhood ...
that remains largely to be demonstrated. The Muslim Brotherhood is best known for their charitable and social action in a country that has changed its economic policy since the arrival of Sadat to power, rising gradually from state socialism to liberalism and privatization. The decrease in social welfare has given way to private initiatives, including the Muslim Brotherhood.
Well organized, with vast resources, able to mobilize quickly to help people, as seen for example after an earthquake in Cairo, they are known to be effective. The currency most comprehensive is: "God is our goal, the Prophet our leader, the Koran our constitution, jihad [holy war] our way, and martyrdom our greatest hope." As such, this motto does not seem compatible with democracy, especially in a country with millions of Christian citizens.
Opponents of the regime that triggered the revolt of the month of January are not convinced that. They attribute, as do some analysts, more than 30% of the vote in free elections where the Muslim Brotherhood. But these are only assumptions. The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian regime is Shi'ite.
There is, on some points, for example the Palestinian issue, the convergences between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah (Shiite). But I do not think the Muslim Brotherhood have relations with the Iranian regime. The Brotherhood is committed to the concept of Muslim nation. She is opposed to the Egyptian government policy on Israel.
You know that Egypt is the first Arab country to have made peace with the Jewish state. The Muslim Brotherhood criticize the government for having yielded to Israel, especially regarding the colonization of the West Bank. This does not necessarily mean that the Muslim Brotherhood, if hypothetically they came to power, would trigger a war against Israel.
I am not convinced that the Muslim Brotherhood want to enter a government of national unity and compromise in this way. What they need most now is a recognition, and they obtained a little these days in being associated with the beginning of negotiations between the opposition and the regime.
Israel thinks, but the majority of the Egyptian people is very rise against Israel and against the conciliatory policy of Mr. Mubarak. If the Muslim Brotherhood took part in a national unity government, they would undoubtedly put more pressure on Israel. But to start a war, I do not think so.
There is already a contradiction in the Egyptian Constitution. It says, firstly, that all citizens have equal rights regardless of their religion or beliefs, but she says the same time, in another article, that Islam is the religion of the state and the principles of Sharia are the main source of all laws.
The cohabitation between the two religions is obviously possible, provided to adjust the Constitution and eliminate discrimination that affect the Copts. Within the Muslim Brotherhood, there are differences over the place given to the Copts in the departments of State. Some refuse, for example, a Christian became President of the Republic.
Officially, the Muslim Brotherhood support themselves. Many of the suspect, however, receive significant funding from some countries like Saudi Arabia, although Saudi Arabia is now a support Mubarak regime. Some members of the Muslim Brotherhood tried to create a moderate party, Al-Wasat (Centre), which was banned.
There are indeed in a wing of the Brotherhood younger, more modern, who wants to learn the Turkish governing party, which has evolved in the direction of democracy. But I do not think it is a majority. The Muslim Brotherhood has renounced violence for a long time. Nevertheless, the groups have staged attacks in Egypt, including the Gamaa Islamiya, which assassinated President Anwar Sadat in 1981, had been engendered by the brotherhood.
Today, there is no evidence that the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood sponsorship of violent actions. These are indeed very few in Egypt. The attack a few weeks ago against the faithful gathered in a church in Alexandria was not awarded to the Muslim Brotherhood. Good question. It seems very difficult nowadays to find a political solution in Egypt without the Muslim Brotherhood.
These are not the ones who sparked the revolt for the month of January against the regime, but there are very skillfully rallied, demonstrated their organizational skills on Tahrir Square, have even been at the forefront of those who physically fought the attackers. They take advantage of these events to officially join the political game, getting recognition, freedom to exist as a movement.
Knowing that many of their members were detained and mistreated in prison all these years. Tariq Ramadan is a westernized Muslim intellectual who defends with great subtlety moderate positions. Some accuse him of double game he denies it. His moderate positions, formulated so attractive, do not seem representative of the majority of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is neither their voice nor their flag bearer. Chat moderated by Olivier Biffaud
No comments:
Post a Comment