From Hopeful Immigrant to FBI Informant – the Inside Story of the Other Abu Zubaidah

Christians of the Holy Land

The exodus from the Holy Land of Palestinian Christians could eventually leave holy cities

Revolution 2.0: How The Internet Changed Wael Ghonim’s Life and Helped Spark Egypt’s Uprising

Hamas Wouldn’t Honor a Treaty, Top Leader Says

Abu Marzook Says He’s Open to a New Israel Relationship

Egypt’s Complex Presidential Politics

Interviewee: Steven A. Cook, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org

Engaging Gilad Atzmon: The Video

Massacre of 16 Civilians Spurs Calls for US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Lies to Congress,Domestic Spying, Torture: Why the Bush White House Must Be Prosecuted

A new book by Elizabeth Holtzman, former Democratic congresswomen

Don’t fear us: Tunisian Islamist leader

By Tarek Amara | Source

The October 23 vote for an assembly that will draft a new constitution has pitted resurgent Islamists against secular groups who say their modern, liberal values are under threat.

Tunisia electrified the Arab world 10 months ago when a popular uprising overthrew autocratic leader Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, creating a model that was copied by people hungry for change in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere.

Western powers and governments in other Arab states are watching Tunisia’s election closely, worried that democratically elected Islamists might impose strict Islamic law and turn their back on Western allies.

Rachid Ghannouchi, who returned to Tunisia from exile in Britain after Ben Ali’s fall, told Reuters in an interview that Western countries and Tunisian liberals had nothing to fear from a victory for his Ennahda party.

“Ben Ali did everything he could to convince the West that we are a terrorist group but he couldn’t do it,” he said.

“We are not cut off from our environment … All the values of democracy and modernity are respected by Ennahda. We are a party that can find a balance between modernity and Islam.”

LITMUS TEST

More than 100 parties will contest the election, but Ennahda has the highest public profile and biggest support network. Opinion polls suggest it will get the most votes, but not win an outright majority in the assembly drafting the constitution.

In the interview, Ghannouchi denied an allegation by his critics that he presents a moderate image in public but that once in power his party’s hardline character will emerge.

Two issues in particular, women’s equality and liberal moral attitudes, are seen by many Tunisians as a litmus test of how tolerant Ennahda will be if it gains power.

In an indication of the party’s stance on women’s rights, a woman who does not wear the head covering favored by Islamists is Ennahda’s candidate for one district in the capital, Tunis.

“The values ??of modernity and women’s freedom began with the first president of Tunisia, Habib Bourguiba,” Ghannouchi said at his party headquarters, where many of the staff are women.

“We will not retreat from these values ??… We will support these values,” he said. “A woman’s freedom and her freedom of dress has been established and we will develop it.”

Western tourists are a major source of income for Tunisia but their habits of drinking alcohol and wearing skimpy clothing can cause tensions with devout Muslims.

Nevertheless, Ghannouchi said he did not favor any restrictions.

“We will seek to create a diversified tourism product, like Turkey,” he said, adding that hotels would not be prevented from offering alcohol and swimming pools, but that they would be encouraged to offer packages for observant Muslims without access to alcohol and with Islamic dress codes at the pool.

FOREIGN RELATIONS

European states for years tolerated Ben Ali’s autocratic rule because Tunisia was a trading partner and it helped curb the flow of drugs, illegal migrants and Islamist militants northwards across the Mediterranean.

Ghannouchi said it was in the interests of all sides for Tunisia to maintain good relations with the West.

“I lived for a long time in Europe without any problems,” he said. “I lived in tolerance with everybody.”

“During my meetings with Western officials and diplomats, I received the message that Ennahda will be welcomed if it wins the elections,” he said.

“They told me that they stand at the same distance from all competitors and their goal is the success of the democratic transition, because the failure of the transition would be catastrophic for Europe, for example, which will be flooded by hundreds of thousands of migrants.”

“We will maintain the relations with our traditional partners such as Europe, but we will seek to improve them in order to get advanced status,” Ghannouchi said, referring to a trade pact Tunisia is seeking with the European Union.

“But we will try also to diversify our partnership to open up to the United States and Latin America, Africa and Asia, and especially Arab markets,” he said.

One reason for the uprising against Ben Ali was that the economy was growing too slowly to generate jobs for youngsters.

Ghannouchi said his party’s foreign policy would be driven by the need to fix this problem. “The biggest concern is to attract foreign investment as part of foreign and local partnerships to drive growth and increase jobs.”

“The party aims to develop the knowledge economy by encouraging investment in the technology industry … There are significant growth opportunities in the telecommunications sector,” he said.

He said he had a message for potential investors.

“Tunisia has become beautiful without Ben Ali … We will put an end to corruption, we will develop legislation to stimulate investment,” said Ghannouchi. “We will confront the corruption that has spread in the structures of the state.”

(Editing by Christian Lowe and Alistair Lyon)

Interview: ‘West cannot understand Middle East, Turkey only through prism of Islam’

Today’s Zaman

Michael Thumann, the Middle East bureau chief for the liberal-centrist German weekly Die Zeit in İstanbul, has said that since Sept. 11, 2001, but even before, a strong suspicion has existed in the West that conflict and trouble in the Middle East are primarily caused by religion or religious groups; however, that is a mistaken view.

“This is what I call the delusion over Islam. Old obsessions die hard. Seeing Islam and Islamists behind every move in the Middle East is an old obsession of many Western observers,” Thumann told us while answering our questions for Monday Talk.

In his new book “Der Islam-Irrtum: Europa und die muslimische Welt” (The Islam Fallacy: Europe’s Fear of the Muslim World), he says the West’s exaggeration of the influence of religious convictions and attempts to understand the Middle East and Turkey mainly through the prism of Islam could lead to misperceptions about the real strengths and weaknesses of the actors in the Middle East.

He elaborated on the issue for our interview.

A German publication called Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the “new caliph of the Middle East.” What do you think about the extent of support for this view in German and even in European foreign policy circles?

These catch phrases from the past are inept attempts by some of the German yellow press media not to explain but just to label Turkish foreign policy. These labels are not useful for serious reporting but for making the case that Turkey does not belong in Europe, or Turkey is teaming up with sinister forces in the Middle East. These stereotypes blur the real facts and events.

What do you think is really happening? What are the real facts as you observe them in regard to Turkey and the Middle East?

My reading of the most recent trip of the prime minister to the Middle East is that it was not an attempt to regenerate historic roles. I see a major shift here from policies that Turkey pursued until this spring, which was to have good relations with some neighbors despite their undemocratic character. The reality has changed very much in the region. Turkey’s foreign policy has changed from supporting authoritarian leaders to supporting freedom movements and people’s aspirations. It is accompanied by an earlier trend in Turkish foreign policy: Take into account what people think inside and outside of Turkey. There is also a strongly populist aspect to Erdoğan’s Israel policy. Whenever he turns the heat up on the issue, it either suits him or he intends to address larger audiences in the region. The latest fallout with Israel was preparation for but not the eventual focus of his trip to the Arab world.

You often travel to the Middle East. Why do you think Turkey is supported by the people of the region? Is it because of what Prime Minister Erdoğan says about Israel? Is it because of the relative success of the Turkish system? Or something else?

There are several factors. Prime Minister Erdoğan is very popular because people perceive him as a pious Muslim who is a successful leader. Turkey’s economic rise is very much reported in the Arab world. What people see is that he has managed to pursue economically oriented pragmatic policies. This has started a debate in hopefully democratizing states in North Africa and beyond. I am careful about the “model” talk because Turkey’s experience in the 20th century is so different from that of the Arab world. There is also increased economic and cultural exchange between Turkey and Arab countries, as opposed to 20 years ago. There are films and television series from Turkey reaching across the Arab world, much like the Egyptian movie industry’s dominance in the 1960s and 1970s, but in a more limited way. There is also the fact that Turkey is an open country now with all these visa agreements with the countries of the region. When I moved here in 2007, I met no Arabs in İstanbul and hardly anybody that I met in Cairo and Damascus ever came here. Beginning in 2009, it shifted. Now every month, I have somebody from a Middle Eastern country sitting in my office. İstanbul has turned into a place of encounter and meeting.

So they don’t see Prime Minister Erdoğan as the new caliph?

What is important is the soft power effect of Turkey. Arabs like Turkish soft power, but if Turkish policies change, you might see all the old prejudices resurfacing. The aggressive tendencies of Turkey with regard to the Cypriot drilling case could have a negative effect concerning the Arabs’ perception of Turkey. Turkey’s arguments about the Cypriot drilling case could trigger those prejudices, for example, because the exploration site is close to the shores of Egypt, Israel and Lebanon.

You say that Arabs like Turkish soft power. Does that also mean that Arabs do not like being hard? When the Arab Spring started, most Western observers thought it would be chaotic and Islamic or Islamist.

Old obsessions die hard. The obsession of seeing Islam and Islamists behind every move in the Middle East is an old habit of many Western observers. This is why I wrote my book; the delusion is wrong. Conflict, politics and social developments in most Middle Eastern countries have not differed much from Western or Eastern European ways in the last century — nationalist movements, power struggles, the quest for money and success, etc. Many of the leaders of the Middle East have motives similar to actors in the West. The Arab Spring is a perfect illustration of that. When [Muammar] Gaddafi faced the uprising, the first thing he said was that this is the work of al-Qaeda. A similar reaction came from Hosni Mubarak, who always used Islamists as a tool to scare the West and continue his dictatorship. However, the Jan. 25 Revolution in Egypt was a revolution of young middle class people who proved to be highly disciplined and well-organized citizens. In the absence of any police, they managed to hold orderly demonstrations of a million in Tahrir Square, set up their own hospitals and security services and cleaned the square after major events. It was a revolution for a new civil order of Egypt, for transparency and freedom.

What about Syria and Tunisia?

That is also what we see in Tunisia and Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood is basically absent in Syria. There has been a law since 1980 requiring the death penalty for anybody discovered to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Rather than an Islamic uprising, there is a civil uprising in Syria. In the course of a revolution, there are different phases. There could be a stronger showing by Islamist movements in the future. When I wrote about Islamist movements in Egypt, I described discussions over the last decade that indicate that they cannot survive as one party under democratic conditions; they have to split up because there are so many diverging views on any question; I heard starkly different opinions by Brotherhood leaders and mainstream Islamists. Today, there are at least 10 different Islamist-related parties in Egypt.

So there is nothing to fear from Islamist or Islamic movements, whether they be Hamas or Hezbollah?

There is a distinction to be made. We have mainstream Islamist movements related to the Muslim Brotherhood that clearly renounced violence some 20 years ago as a means of political struggle. This is very different from Hamas and Hezbollah, which are also Islamist movements in a broader sense; Hamas was initially tied to the Muslim Brotherhood but is now a rather distant offspring, and Hezbollah is a Shiite movement. They call themselves resistance movements, and I call them Islamic nationalists because they were founded to fight Israeli aggression as they see it. They are anti-Israeli movements in the tradition of secularist anti-Israeli movements. They take the flag of resistance from secularist parties like Fatah and combine it with an Islamist formula which is tough for Israel because their ideology is nationalism, but they also pursue religious goals. Then there are those fundamentalist terrorist organizations — I would not call them Islamists — we saw after the invasion of Iraq, which are al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-related movements.

You also shake up Western perceptions concerning Turkey-Iran relations and say that they are competitors.

There was a stupid equation in 2010 when there was the argument between the US and Turkey about Iran. The equation was that Turkey sides with Iran because Erdoğan has an Islamist background and Iran has an Islamist government; here is the link! That was a misperception disregarding facts on the ground. Turkey and Iran have been competitors. Their size, industrial base, population and military powers show similarities. These are two large non-Arab nations of the Middle East. They are often interested in selling similar items in the same areas in the region and elsewhere. When it comes to the political aspect, you have two models in the Middle East: soft power Turkey and hard power Iran, which fights with Israel and the West, provides Hamas with weapons, wants to bring down the Israeli regime, takes an aggressive stance militarily in Iraq if necessary and supports President Bashar al-Assad by all means. And Turkey is on the other side regarding Syria, supporting the population rather than Assad. You see Turkey having an entirely different role in Egypt, where Prime Minister Erdoğan has secular suggestions — entirely different than Iran’s stance. Additionally, Turkey sided with NATO as it will host the radar component of a missile shield in the region.

---

‘World-wide recognition of Palestine inevitable’

We heard quite dramatic addresses by President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. What is your assessment of those addresses in regards to the hopes of achieving peace in the region?

In a concise and deeply moving speech, Mahmoud Abbas made the case for a Palestinian state impressively clear. Benjamin Netanyahu’s answer sounded cynical and unconvincing. His right-wing government has thwarted all peace efforts over the last [number of] years, although Abbas was more than ready for a deal. The Palestinian state’s recognition bid at the UN is just a logical step now. Turkey is absolutely right in supporting statehood. Unfortunately, [US] President [Barack] Obama is domestically in a difficult position one year before elections, which prevents him from doing the same thing. But worldwide recognition is inevitable sooner or later.

‘Turkey’s good image at risk over oil exploration’

Turkish warships have set out for the Mediterranean at a time when Turkey and Greek Cyprus are deadlocked over possible deposits of oil and natural gas off the coast of the island. Turkish officials have said Turkey would start drilling in the area soon. What risks are involved in this move?

Turkey has been enjoying a soft power image in the region as a broker, an interlocutor. But the rhetoric of the prime minister on some issues such as Israel, and especially the escalating crisis over drilling rights in the eastern Mediterranean, has a strong potential to tarnish this image. It is highly unwise that the Greek Cypriots launch drilling activities at this critical moment, but we have to be clear here: It is their right by international law, and they have international agreements with Egypt, Lebanon and Israel to delimitate the economic zones in the southeastern Mediterranean. Egypt has strong interests there as well. This is far away from Turkey. Turkey and northern Cyprus may launch similar activities along their shores. But any military or other interference in the area between Cyprus, Egypt, Israel and Lebanon would put Turkey’s good image at risk in Arab countries.

‘Merkel’s privileged membership idea evaporated’

Turkish President Abdullah Gül was recently on a four-day visit to Germany and made clear during his stay there that joining the European Union remains Turkey’s “strategic goal.” He also told journalists there that Germany has been more open than France during Turkey’s EU accession process, pointing out that more chapters had been opened during Germany’s EU presidency. Would you talk about the difference between the approaches of Germany and France to Turkey’s EU accession?

There is a big difference in the way Germany acts regarding Turkey’s accession. In Germany it’s quite rhetorical, whereas France actively blocks chapters. And it has blocked important chapters that could lead to membership. Germany did not block any chapters; it opened chapters during its presidency. Similarities between French and German attitudes toward Turkey’s membership are rhetorical — like the CDU’s (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) “privileged membership” idea for Turkey. There is no clearly defined policy about it — no clear concept behind it or solid thought. It has simply evaporated. Chancellor Angela Merkel said in her visit to İstanbul last year that she understands Turks do not like the privileged membership idea that much. At the moment the EU has entirely different problems to worry about. The whole debate has shifted from enlargement to the survival of the EU.

---

‘Is Turkey’s ruling party an Islamist group?’

Thumann asks this question in his book and responds that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party or AKP) is an offshoot of the movement of political Islam in Turkey. He further explains that the party has neither a religious program nor does it implement any Islamist policies, and is basically a pragmatist conservative party.

The AKP faces competition on the religious right from two parties that garnered some 3 percent in the elections of June 12, while the AKP got almost 50 percent. It is a politically conservative and economically liberal party that makes politics for the pious middle classes and for those who were middle class and then became rich. It is a determined capitalist party. The questions over AKP rule do not arise from religion but from economic and political factors. Due to Turkey’s fast growth rate, it has won a third election in a row with an absolute majority. Today, Turkey’s Kemalist heritage of over-centralization plays into the hands of the ruling party. The Turkish Republic has a striking lack of checks and balances both in the center and the provinces. The AKP proves too successful for the old Turkish system, which is in dire need of a democratic constitutional overhaul.

Thumann also said in our interview that perceptions about the AK Party have shifted.

It is widely known now that the AKP is different than Arab Islamist parties. The negative view regarding the AK Party has changed in that it is now perceived as a party with authoritarian tendencies trying to monopolize power in Turkey. In this respect, it is interesting to observe how the views of the opposition parties have influenced Western perceptions.

---

PROFILE

Michael Thumann

He has been the Middle East bureau chief for the liberal-centrist German weekly Die Zeit in İstanbul since September 2007 and has been reporting on the region since 2002. Previously, he was the foreign editor for the same paper in Hamburg, and from 1996 to 2001, he reported on Russia and Central Asia as the Moscow bureau chief. During the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s, he worked as Die Zeit’s correspondent for Southeastern Europe. For his new book he did additional research as a Bosch public policy fellow at the Transatlantic Academy in Washington, D.C. His books include “Das Lied von der russischen Erde. Moskaus Ringen um Einheit und Größe” (The Song of the Russian Earth. Moscow’s Struggle for Unity and Greatness, 2002); “La puissance russe: un puzzle à reconstituer?” (The Russian Power: Can it be put together again? 2003); and “Der Islam und der Westen. Säkularisierung und Demokratie im Islam” (Islam and the West. Secularization and Democracy in the Islamic World, 2003).

Al Arabiya Poll: Some Arabs Justify 9/11 And Deny Al-Qaeda’s Culpability; I Say: Yeah, So What? (II)

Source

In part I, I discussed the new Al Arabiya poll, of questionable validity, that is making the rounds in the anti-Muslim cyber-world.  Another finding of the poll, per MEMRI:

Out of the 220,000 Arabs who participated, 23% believed Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and 26% did not.

Anti-Muslim websites are absolutely beside themselves at how unbelievably gullible Moozlums are, how they are miserably steeped in conspiracy theories, and how they can’t just admit the fact that Moozlums did 9/11.  Yet, as the Al Arabiya article, which the Islamophobes themselves linked to (but can’t read), says: these findings are not much different than those of other places in the world, including the West.

Indeed, we find that outside of the United States there is “no consensus who was behind Sept 11″ as noted in this Reuters article:

No consensus on who was behind Sept 11: global poll

Seven years after the September 11 attacks, there is no consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were responsible, according to an international poll published on Wednesday.

The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001.

On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.

The poll was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland in the United States.

In Europe, al Qaeda was cited by 56 percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans. The U.S. government was to blame, according to 23 percent of Germans and 15 percent of Italians…

Therefore, the fact that 26% of Arabs don’t believe Al-Qaeda is to blame, according to the Al Arabiya poll, is not completely out of line with world opinion.

That only in the United States is there a consensus that Al-Qaeda did it is not something very surprising, considering that the U.S. government quickly, repeatedly, and emphatically pointed the finger at Al-Qaeda.

But, you know who else the government blamed?  Iraq.

These anti-Muslim bigots are snickering at how these Moozlums are just so absolutely stupid for thinking Israel or America could be involved in the 9/11 attack, when in fact the entire country–led by neoconservatives, Zionists, and anti-Muslim bigots like them–invaded a country on the false belief (the conspiracy theory) that Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda and had something to do with 9/11.

Indeed, a January 2004 poll by Newsweek found that a majority of Americans (49% vs. 39%) believed that “Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.”  Amazingly, long after even the Bush administration admitted they were wrong, 41% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (as seen in a June 2007 Newsweek poll).  This is a belief that Americans continue to cling on to even today!  Oh, but how utterly deluded those Moozlums are for thinking Israel was involved!  

Israel National News says:

Only 23 percent believe that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks, while a large number – 26 percent – think that the terrorist organization did not plan and carry out the hijack-bombings….

In Iran, the percentage of those denying  Al Qaeda’s involvement is even higher. The government controlled press continues to claim that the official version of 9/11 is false and that unaccounted for explosions brought down the Twin Towers in New York City.

How absolutely primitive of a government to issue statements blaming someone other than Al-Qaeda for 9/11!  That is totally unlike completely similar to the U.S. government linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11.  As Prof. Stephen Walt pointed out, this was all done with Israeli encouragement.  And now, the Israelis are blaming Iraq Iran.

All of this was perfectly depicted in a Family Guy clip:

Interestingly, even in the United States, “more than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.”  So really, what’s the big deal if 26% of Arabs don’t believe 9/11 was done by Al-Qaeda?

Of note also is the fact that it is almost conventional wisdom, often heard even by liberals (implied, for instance, by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911 and even the dog in the Family Guy in clip above), that Saudi Arabia has responsibility for 9/11 (“it was the Saudis that were involved, not Iraq”).  This utterly ignorant idea is seriously discussed in somber terms.  Whether it’s Israel, Iraq, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, the fact is that Muslims do not have a monopoly on 9/11 conspiracy theory.  There is plenty to go around.

In any case, the fact that the United States weaponized 9/11, by using it as an excuse to bomb, invade, and occupy multiple Muslim countries makes more Muslims gravitate towards 9/11 conspiracy theories, for reasons that should be patently obvious.

*  *  *  *  *

MEMRI also notes, commenting on the Al Arabiya poll:

16% considered the assassination of Osama bin Laden a criminal act, 48% did not, and 36% were undecided.

The assassination was definitely illegal under international law, for multiple reasons: Firstly, it involved the flagrant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty; would there be any question about legality if Pakistani commandos landed on Ellis Island?  The illegality of this act is not limited to the capture of Osama bin Laden, but can be seen in the continued violation of Paksitan’s sovereignty on a day-to-day basis with U.S. drone attacks that maim scores of civilians.

Secondly, Osama bin Laden was unarmed and yet was shot dead.  If we were truly a civilized people, someone wouldn’t really need to explain why it is illegal to shoot unarmed men.  Bin Laden was killed so that he wouldn’t face trial, which is a bedrock of our legal system.  This too is not limited to Osama bin Laden, as the U.S. has a hit-list out for other American citizens too.  Furthermore, the government continues to deny countless number of Muslims the right to a trial.

Thirdly, there is the larger issue, which is all the illegal actions that took place between the time the Taliban agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden, an offer which the U.S. refused, to the time the U.S. assassinated him.  If all of these actions (i.e. the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) were part of America’s strategy to capture Bin Laden, then certainly this entire process is illegal.  This fact underscores the biggest problem with the so-called War on Terror: terrorism should be dealt with using a combination of policing and negotiation, not war and destruction.

Therefore, my question is: if 16% of Arabs thought that the Osama bin Laden assassination was a criminal act, so what?

Egyptian Muslim Sisterhood and a new historic testimony

Hussam Tammam | Source

Fatemah Abdel-Hadi, one of the founders of the Egyptian Muslim Sisterhood Chapter and a prominent leader in the group, was one of the founding generation of Muslim women activists. Women’s activism was modest in the first few years after the creation of the group in Ismailiya before it moved to Cairo in April 1932, and its work became better known under the leadership of Labiba Ahmed. In April 1944, it launched into action with the creation of the first Executive Committee of the Muslim Sisterhood upon the orders of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Hassan Al-Banna, and under the supervision of Mahmoud Al-Gohari. The committee included 12 female members chaired by Fatemah Al-Ashmawi and her deputy, Abdel-Hadi.

Abdel-Hadi was the wife of a very important although not well-known figure, Mohamed Youssef Hawash, who was a prominent member of the famous 1965 Group who were disciples of the famous idealogue Sayed Qutb. Not only was Hawash Qutb’s companion in jail and then execution, he is considered Qutb’s eye through which he viewed the Muslim Brotherhood and the hand that led him as an outsider through the group’s inner machinations which were difficult to decipher in the 1950s and 1960s, during bloody confrontations with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s regime.

Abdel-Hadi was a firsthand witness of an era; she was one of the founders of the Muslim Sisterhood, a realm that three quarters of a century later remains unexplored in the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and the overall Islamic movement. Only few have surfaced out of this dynamic and at times explosive entity, such as Haja Zeinab Al-Ghazali who was viewed as a symbol of Muslim women’s activism and fascination after the publication of her famous autobiography Days of My Life, about the true and unwritten record of the Muslim women’s movement. Abdel-Hadi’s testimonial serves as an introduction to this history, especially from a social perspective.

Abdel-Hadi’s life and record was intertwined with the major milestones, events and historic transformations of the Muslim Sisterhood and overall Islamic movement. It is also linked to the most prominent central figures in the history of Islamic activism in Egypt and Arab world. She was very close to the households of Muslim Brotherhood leaders and the group’s historic icons; she was in close relations with Al-Banna’s family, wife and daughters, and in fact was the only female not in his family to be present at his home when he was assassinated, when his body was prepared for burial, and as his funeral procession left his house.

She was also closely connected with the women in the households of the second Muslim Brotherhood guide, Hassan Al-Hodeibi, and Qutb, the second most prominent idealogue of the group after its founder Banna. She lived with them through the ordeals of the arrest of their men and the dilemmas of Brotherhood households without their patriarchs. Abdel-Hadi also lived through the ordeal of imprisonment herself with 50 other Sisterhood members, and was a witness to and influential activist in the Muslim women’s movement.

Since her husband was Qutb’s companion during years of incarceration, where they spent most of their time in the prison hospital, Abdel-Hadi’s testimonial of the Islamic movement’s philosopher in the middle of the last century is exceptionally significant. She knew him at close proximity because of her husband’s relationship with him, and was familiar with his personal life through her ties with his sisters, and during her visits with her husband and his companion in prison and hospital. In time, she became a confidante of Qutb and even a go-between for a proposed marriage that failed.

Abdel-Hadi’s testimonial on the 1965 Group, which has earned a prominent place in the history of relations between the Muslim Brotherhood and the state, is a unique and exceptional perspective not only because of her proximity and connection to many events and details in these events, but also because she is one of its prominent victims. She experienced prison first hand and her husband was the last of three executed.

Abdel-Hadi’s narrative in My Journey with the Muslim Sisterhood: From Imam Al-Banna to Nasser’s Jails is a little known testimonial in the history of the Islamic movement, in which she attempts to document the most significant and muted events as part of a historic record. Her testimonial covers an important time in the history of the Islamic movement spanning more than three decades, beginning at the end of WWII, through the July revolution and the fall of the monarchy in Egypt, as well as critical years during the Nasser regime and the beginning of Sadat’s rule.

What is unique about her tale is that she presents a very personal insight, even when she discusses events and incidents that formed the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt during a very complicated era. She reveals her relations with figures who changed the course of history, some of them executed by hanging while others became presidents of the republic. It is an eyewitness and sometimes firsthand account where she is a protagonist in the events.

Unlike others, Abdel-Hadi does not exaggerate, inflate or improvise even when she relates her personal agony and suffering with her small family. Her young daughter and son lived through the ordeal of their mother’s incarceration, and their father’s imprisonment for many years, and his eventual execution.

Unlike other storylines, such as Zeinab Al-Ghazali’s, Abdel-Hadi’s tale appears to be more authentic as a historic testimonial about the acute conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and the 1952 Revolution. What she lived through did not need emotional sensationalisation, or perhaps imaginary embelishments, to convince readers that the Muslim Brotherhood lived through true adversity under Nasser.

The most important aspect of Abdel-Hadi’s testimonial is that it is not purely political, but recounts important milestones in the social history of the Muslim Brotherhood movement — the group’s political dimension continues to overshadow its other facets that are mostly absent in testimonials and memoirs that document the history of the Brotherhood. Reading about Abdel-Hadi’s journey with the Brotherhood is key to understanding the important transformations which occurred in social life in Egypt over half a century, some of whose chapters we continue to live.

Abdel-Hadi’s testimonial spotlights the most important key to many of the critical transformations in the history of Muslim women’s activism, or preaching to women in general. Most significantly, the transformation of the Muslim Sisterhood from a social proselytisation movement into an ideological-political one caused by an even bigger transformation of the Muslim Brotherhood overall.

We find out how the Muslim Sisterhood was primarily focused on society and proselytisation in the beginning with the aim of promoting authentic piety, commitment to good conduct and values through charity, assisting the poor and needy, as well as collecting and distributing alms. Soon, it quickly delved into politics, perhaps as a result of momentous events, including the confrontation with the July Revolution regime, and morphed into a wing of an ideological movement immersed in all forms of politics, its rituals and leading figures.

There is an extensive discussion of the hijab (head veil) and its symbolism in the modern Islamic movement, and also its significance in religiosity and society in Egypt in general. We will be surprised at how it was almost non-existent when the Muslim Sisterhood was a prosetylising social movement before it immersed itself into a political conflict and slipped into the trap of ideology, making the hijab an icon that summarises the definition of faith and piety.

The transformation of the Islamic movement, especially the women’s chapter, into a political ideology required it to have prominent symbols and the hijab, and today’s niqab (face veil), met all the necessary criteria.

Further reading into this transformation reveals why prominent leading female activists in the Islamic movement became less public in the 1970s, such as Abdel-Hadi or Al-Ashmawi, while figures such as Al-Ghazali rose to the fore. The latter was an epitome of the transformation of the Muslim Sisterhood from a social prosetylitision movement into blatant political activism, with its ideological conflicts, components and conspicuous symbols.

Hussam Tammam is a researcher specialised in Islamist movements and ideology.

Omar Baddar: Who is Brigitte Gabriel?

Source

Top Ten Right-Wing Responses To CAP’s Islamophobia Report: ‘Cowards,’ ‘Straight Out of Mein Kampf,’ ‘A Pile Of Dung’

Source | By Eli Clifton

The Center for American Progress’s new report, “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” is receiving a positive welcome from neutral observers as journalists and pundits pore over the 139-page exposé on the U.S. Islamophobia network.

The report’s authors have appeared on CNN.com, Al Jazeera English, Current TV, Guardian.co.uk and numerous radio interviews. Print media outlet such as The Jewish Daily Forward, The Atlantic, Salon.com, The Washington Post and The Nation have all run articles discussing the report’s findings.

Unfortunately, that accuracy and thorougness has proven a challenge for many of the Islamophobes mentioned in the report. With no serious factual errors with which to attack the authors, they’ve fallen back on attacking straw men and offering vitriolic, if at times colorful, ad hominem attacks.

Here’s the top ten list of right-wing responses to “Fear, Inc.”

10.) Townhall.com columnist Karen Lugo concludes that the report’s authors are “the real cowards” and claims “it was the authors of this 138-page report that demonstrated a real phobia when they evaded the urgent question: Does America have a reason to fear Muslims?” (Actually, that was a major part of the report.)

9.) Writing on David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag, Daniel Greenfield runs with the new meme that the report blames Jews for Islamophobia. He writes, “Any report on Islamophobia that scapegoats Jews is not a report on bigotry, it is an act of bigotry.”

8.) Ed Lasky, writing on The American Thinker, inaccurately claims that the report pins blame on Jews, arguing, “…this ‘report’ relies on the conspiracy and age-old anti-Semitic trope that Jews fan prejudice towards others and promotes divisions for their own nefarious purposes (to support Israel in this case). This mindset is straight out of Mein Kampf.”

7.) Adrian Morgan, editor of Family Security Matters, takes issue with report author Wajahat Ali, writing, “Ali is said to be a ‘humorist’ but there is pitiably little that appears in his blog ‘Goatmilk’ that displays this purported sense of humor.” Morgan also identifies a typo in the report and ponders “Was there no money left for a proof-reader, to here strike out the superfluous word, ‘he’?”

6.) Middle East Forum’s Daniel Pipes told The Washington Post’s Michelle Boorstein that, “I am not against the religion of Islam but am very much against the political ideology of Islamism, which I see as the third great totalitarian movement after fascism and communism. This lack of distinction points to the intellectually shoddy premise of the report.”

5.) Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer wrote on Human Events that the report’s authors are assisting jihadists because “Fear, Inc.”, “ignores jihad activity altogether, portraying Muslims as victims and demonizing all who stand in the way of the misogynistic and unjust agenda of the Islamic jihad, whether advanced by violent or nonviolent means. It thus reveals itself to be just another tool of those same jihadists.”

4.) Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney bizarrely, and we might add inaccurately, describes the report as CAP’s “…latest ‘copy and paste’ effort [duplicating] large sections of five nearly identical ‘investigations’ just this year, complaining that millions of concerned Americans are Islamophobes.” Gaffney, in what might be an editorial misstep, proceeds to interview himself, writing, “Frank J. Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, noted that ‘The ‘Shariah Defense Lobby’ is in a race against time to hide the grim reality of Shariah law as it is actually enforced…’”

3.) Daniel Pipes’ PipeLineNews.org observed that the report “neatly falls into lockstep with the efforts being exerted by Muslim Brotherhood front groups to incrementally Islamize the West.”

2.) Blogger Pamela Geller calls the report “a predictable misfired missile by Islamic supremacists and leftist useful idiots” and “a pile of dung masquerading as research” that “reads more like a Mein Kampf treatise.” She encourages her readers to “watch [the authors] choke on their own vomit” and concludes “they will never defeat me.”

1.) Fox Business Network’s Eric Bolling, inaccurately attributed an outlandishly anti-Semitic quote to the report, saying, “I’m reading directly from this report: ‘The Obama-allied Center for American Progress has released a report that blames Islamophobia in America on a small group of Jews and Israel supporters in America, whose views are being backed by millions of dollars.’

To be clear, neither that quote nor anything resembling it, appears in our report. Please email Brian Lewis, VP for Corporate Communications at Fox Business (brian.lewis@foxnews.com), and tell him that Bolling’s wildly inaccurate reporting on “Fear Inc.” requires an on-air correction.

Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America

By Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang , Scott Keyes, Faiz Shakir | Source

Download this report (pdf)

Read the report in your web browser (Scribd)

Download individual chapters of the report (pdf):

• Introduction and summary
• Chapter 1: Donors to the Islamophobia network
• Chapter 2: The Islamophobia misinformation experts
• Chapter 3: The grassroots organizations and the religious right
• Chapter 4: The right-wing media enablers of anti-Islam propaganda
• Chapter 5: The political players
• Conclusion

Video: Ask the Expert: Faiz Shakir on the Group Behind Islamophobia

On July 22, a man planted a bomb in an Oslo government building that killed eight people. A few hours after the explosion, he shot and killed 68 people, mostly teenagers, at a Labor Party youth camp on Norway’s Utoya Island.

By midday, pundits were speculating as to who had perpetrated the greatest massacre in Norwegian history since World War II. Numerous mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlantic, speculated about an Al Qaeda connection and a “jihadist” motivation behind the attacks. But by the next morning it was clear that the attacker was a 32-year-old, white, blond-haired and blue-eyed Norwegian named Anders Breivik. He was not a Muslim, but rather a self-described Christian conservative.

According to his attorney, Breivik claimed responsibility for his self-described “gruesome but necessary” actions. On July 26, Breivik told the court that violence was “necessary” to save Europe from Marxism and “Muslimization.” In his 1,500-page manifesto, which meticulously details his attack methods and aims to inspire others to extremist violence, Breivik vows “brutal and breathtaking operations which will result in casualties” to fight the alleged “ongoing Islamic Colonization of Europe.”

Breivik’s manifesto contains numerous footnotes and in-text citations to American bloggers and pundits, quoting them as experts on Islam’s “war against the West.” This small group of anti-Muslim organizations and individuals in our nation is obscure to most Americans but wields great influence in shaping the national and international political debate. Their names are heralded within communities that are actively organizing against Islam and targeting Muslims in the United States.

Breivik, for example, cited Robert Spencer, one of the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile in this report, and his blog, Jihad Watch, 162 times in his manifesto. Spencer’s website, which “tracks the attempts of radical Islam to subvert Western culture,” boasts another member of this Islamophobia network in America, David Horowitz, on his Freedom Center website. Pamela Geller, Spencer’s frequent collaborator, and her blog, Atlas Shrugs, was mentioned 12 times.

Geller and Spencer co-founded the organization Stop Islamization of America, a group whose actions and rhetoric the Anti-Defamation League concluded “promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy “American values.” Based on Breivik’s sheer number of citations and references to the writings of these individuals, it is clear that he read and relied on the hateful, anti-Muslim ideology of a number of men and women detailed in this report&a select handful of scholars and activists who work together to create and promote misinformation about Muslims.

While these bloggers and pundits were not responsible for Breivik’s deadly attacks, their writings on Islam and multiculturalism appear to have helped create a world view, held by this lone Norwegian gunman, that sees Islam as at war with the West and the West needing to be defended. According to former CIA officer and terrorism consultant Marc Sageman, just as religious extremism “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged,” the writings of these anti-Muslim misinformation experts are “the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.” Sageman adds that their rhetoric “is not cost-free.”

These pundits and bloggers, however, are not the only members of the Islamophobia infrastructure. Breivik’s manifesto also cites think tanks, such as the Center for Security Policy, the Middle East Forum, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism—three other organizations we profile in this report. Together, this core group of deeply intertwined individuals and organizations manufacture and exaggerate threats of “creeping Sharia,” Islamic domination of the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Quran.

This network of hate is not a new presence in the United States. Indeed, its ability to organize, coordinate, and disseminate its ideology through grassroots organizations increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Furthermore, its ability to influence politicians’ talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.

And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam—in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.

Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:

• Donors Capital Fund
• Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
• Russell Berrie Foundation
• Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
• Fairbrook Foundation

Altogether, these seven charitable groups provided $42.6 million to Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009—funding that supports the scholars and experts that are the subject of our next chapter as well as some of the grassroots groups that are the subject of Chapter 3 of our report.

And what does this money fund? Well, here’s one of many cases in point: Last July, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich warned a conservative audience at the American Enterprise Institute that the Islamic practice of Sharia was “a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” Gingrich went on to claim that “Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world.”

Sharia, or Muslim religious code, includes practices such as charitable giving, prayer, and honoring one’s parents—precepts virtually identical to those of Christianity and Judaism. But Gingrich and other conservatives promote alarmist notions about a nearly 1,500-year-old religion for a variety of sinister political, financial, and ideological motives. In his remarks that day, Gingrich mimicked the language of conservative analyst Andrew McCarthy, who co-wrote a report calling Sharia “the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time.” Such similarities in language are no accident. Look no further than the organization that released McCarthy’s anti-Sharia report: the aforementioned Center for Security Policy, which is a central hub of the anti-Muslim network and an active promoter of anti- Sharia messaging and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

In fact, CSP is a key source for right-wing politicians, pundits, and grassroots organizations, providing them with a steady stream of reports mischaracterizing Islam and warnings about the dangers of Islam and American Muslims. Operating under the leadership of Frank Gaffney, the organization is funded by a small number of foundations and donors with a deep understanding of how to influence U.S. politics by promoting highly alarming threats to our national security. CSP is joined by other anti-Muslim organizations in this lucrative business, such as Stop Islamization of America and the Society of Americans for National Existence. Many of the leaders of these organizations are well-schooled in the art of getting attention in the press, particularly Fox News, The Wall Street Journal editorial pages, The Washington Times, and a variety of right-wing websites and radio outlets.

Misinformation experts such as Gaffney consult and work with such right-wing grassroots organizations as ACT! for America and the Eagle Forum, as well as religious right groups such as the Faith and Freedom Coalition and American Family Association, to spread their message. Speaking at their conferences, writing on their websites, and appearing on their radio shows, these experts rail against Islam and cast suspicion on American Muslims. Much of their propaganda gets churned into fundraising appeals by grassroots and religious right groups. The money they raise then enters the political process and helps fund ads supporting politicians who echo alarmist warnings and sponsor anti-Muslim attacks.

These efforts recall some of the darkest episodes in American history, in which religious, ethnic, and racial minorities were discriminated against and persecuted. From Catholics, Mormons, Japanese Americans, European immigrants, Jews, and African Americans, the story of America is one of struggle to achieve in practice our founding ideals. Unfortunately, American Muslims and Islam are the latest chapter in a long American struggle against scapegoating based on religion, race, or creed.

Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America. Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam: the lowest favorability rating since 2001, according to a 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll. According to a 2010 Time magazine poll, 28 percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and nearly one-third of the country thinks followers of Islam should be barred from running for president.

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 alone did not drive Americans’ perceptions of Muslims and Islam. President George W. Bush reflected the general opinion of the American public at the time when he went to great lengths to make clear that Islam and Muslims are not the enemy. Speaking to a roundtable of Arab and Muslim American leaders at the Afghanistan embassy in 2002, for example, President Bush said, “All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith—face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”

Unfortunately, President Bush’s words were soon eclipsed by an organized escalation of hateful statements about Muslims and Islam from the members of the Islamophobia network profiled in this report. This is as sad as it is dangerous. It is enormously important to understand that alienating the Muslim American community not only threatens our fundamental promise of religious freedom, it also hurts our efforts to combat terrorism. Since 9/11, the Muslim American community has helped security and law enforcement officials prevent more than 40 percent of Al Qaeda terrorist plots threatening America. The largest single source of initial information to authorities about the few Muslim American plots has come from the Muslim American community.

Around the world, there are people killing people in the name of Islam, with which most Muslims disagree. Indeed, in most cases of radicalized neighbors, family members, or friends, the Muslim American community is as baffled, disturbed, and surprised by their appearance as the general public. Treating Muslim American citizens and neighbors as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, is not only offensive to America’s core values, it is utterly ineffective in combating terrorism and violent extremism.

The White House recently released the national strategy for combating violent extremism, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” One of the top focal points of the effort is to “counter al-Qa’ida’s propaganda that the United States is somehow at war with Islam.” Yet orchestrated efforts by the individuals and organizations detailed in this report make it easy for al-Qa’ida to assert that America hates Muslims and that Muslims around the world are persecuted for the simple crime of being Muslims and practicing their religion.

Sadly, the current isolation of American Muslims echoes past witch hunts in our history—from the divisive McCarthyite purges of the 1950s to the sometimes violent anti-immigrant campaigns in the 19th and 20th centuries. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has compared the fear-mongering of Muslims with anti-Catholic sentiment of the past. In response to the fabricated “Ground Zero mosque” controversy in New York last summer, Mayor Bloomberg said:

In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center. … We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.

This report shines a light on the Islamophobia network of so-called experts, academics, institutions, grassroots organizations, media outlets, and donors who manufacture, produce, distribute, and mainstream an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. Let us learn the proper lesson from the past, and rise above fear-mongering to public awareness, acceptance, and respect for our fellow Americans. In doing so, let us prevent hatred from infecting and endangering our country again.

In the pages that follow, we profile the small number of funders, organizations, and individuals who have contributed to the discourse on Islamophobia in this country. We begin with the money trail in Chapter 1—our analysis of the funding streams that support anti-Muslim activities. Chapter 2 identifies the intellectual nexus of the Islamophobia network. Chapter 3 highlights the key grassroots players and organizations that help spread the messages of hate. Chapter 4 aggregates the key media amplifiers of Islamophobia. And Chapter 5 brings attention to the elected officials who frequently support the causes of anti- Muslim organizing.

Before we begin, a word about the term “Islamophobia.” We don’t use this term lightly. We define it as an exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political, and civic life.

It is our view that in order to safeguard our national security and uphold America’s core values, we must return to a fact-based civil discourse regarding the challenges we face as a nation and world. This discourse must be frank and honest, but also consistent with American values of religious liberty, equal justice under the law, and respect for pluralism. A first step toward the goal of honest, civil discourse is to expose—and marginalize—the influence of the individuals and groups who make up the Islamophobia network in America by actively working to divide Americans against one another through misinformation.

Wajahat Ali is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and a researcher for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Eli Clifton is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and a national security reporter for the Center for American Progress Action Fund and ThinkProgress.org. Matthew Duss is a Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress and Director of the Center’s Middle East Progress. Lee Fang is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and an investigative researcher/blogger for the Center for American Progress Action Fund and ThinkProgress.org. Scott Keyes is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and an investigative researcher for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Faiz Shakir is a Vice President at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor-in-Chief of ThinkProgress.org.

Download this report (pdf)

Read the report in your web browser (Scribd)

Download individual chapters of the report (pdf):

• Introduction and summary
• Chapter 1: Donors to the Islamophobia network
• Chapter 2: The Islamophobia misinformation experts
• Chapter 3: The grassroots organizations and the religious right
• Chapter 4: The right-wing media enablers of anti-Islam propaganda
• Chapter 5: The political players
• Conclusion

Video: Ask the Expert: Faiz Shakir on the Group Behind Islamophobia

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Anna Soellner (economic policy)
202.478.5322 or asoellner@americanprogress.org

Print: Anne Shoup (education policy)
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

Print: Christina DiPasquale (foreign policy and security, energy)
202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org

Print: Raúl Arce-Contreras (ethnic media, immigration)
202.478.5318 or rarcecontreras@americanprogress.org

Radio: Anne Shoup
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

TV: Andrea Purse
202.741.6250 or apurse@americanprogress.org

[scribd id=63489887 key=key-15nxgg2azw3yqelkv5v8 mode=list]

REPORT: $42 Million From Seven Foundations Helped Fuel The Rise Of Islamophobia In America

Source

Following a six-month long investigative research project, the Center for American Progress released a 130-page report today which reveals that more than $42 million from seven foundations over the past decade have helped fan the flames of anti-Muslim hate in America. The authors — Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matt Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and myself — worked to expose the Islamophobia network in depth, name the major players, connect the dots, and trace the genesis of anti-Muslim propaganda.

The report, titled “Fear Inc.: The Roots Of the Islamophobia Network In America,” lifts the veil behind the hate, follows the money, and identifies the names of foundations who have given money, how much they have given, and who they have given to:

The money has flowed into the hands of five key “experts” and “scholars” who comprise the central nervous system of anti-Muslim propaganda:

FRANK GAFFNEY, Center for Security Policy – “A mosque that is used to promote a seditious program, which is what Sharia is…that is not a protected religious practice, that is in fact sedition.” [Source]

DAVID YERUSHALMI, Society of Americans for National Existence: “Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization…the Muslim peoples, those committed to Islam as we know it today, are our enemies.” [Source]

DANIEL PIPES, Middle East Forum: “All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.” [Source]

ROBERT SPENCER, Jihad Watch: “Of course, as I have pointed out many times, traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.” [Source]

STEVEN EMERSON, Investigative Project on Terrorism: “One of the world’s great religions — which has more than 1.4 billion adherents — somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine.” [Source]

These five “scholars” are assisted in their outreach efforts by Brigitte Gabriel (founder, ACT! for America), Pamela Geller (co-founder, Stop Islamization of America), and David Horowitz (supporter of Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch). As the report details, information is then disseminated through conservative organizations like the Eagle Forum, the religious right, Fox News, and politicians such as Allen West and Newt Gingrich.

Over the past few years, the Islamophobia network (the funders, scholars, grassroots activists, media amplifiers, and political validators) have worked hard to push narratives that Obama might be a Muslim, that mosques are incubators of radicalization, and that “radical Islam” has infiltrated all aspects of American society — including the conservative movement.

To explain how the Islamophobia network operates, we’ve produced this video to show just one example of how they have mainstreamed the baseless and unfounded fear that Sharia may soon replace American laws:

Click here to read the full report.

Anti-Muslim Blogger Pamela Geller Lashes Out At Islamophobia Report: ‘Pile Of Dung Masquerading As Research’

Source | By Eli Clifton

Responding to CAP’s Islamophobia report, anti-Muslim activists David Horowitz called it “fascistic” and Robert Spencer deemed it the “agenda of the Islamic jihad.” Determined to one-up her Islamophobia network colleagues, Pamela Geller took to her blog on Friday evening to unleash a fiery tirade against the new report “Fear, Inc.”

Geller piles baseless, if at times colorful, allegations on the report’s authors. Including:

Over at the wildly funded machine of hate and lies, the “Center of American Progess,” the Soros cranks have spent hundreds of thousands producing a pile of dung masquerading as research. […]

It reads more like a Mein Kampf treatise. The funding section of the report is outrageous. I have not seen one dime from any those donors, though they name me as a recipient. Lies. […]

[MediaMatters and the Center for American Progress] mean to destroy this country, and they will crush anyone who gets in their way. […]

This “report on Islamophobia” is Goebbels attacking the Jew. I wear it as a badge of honor. These quislings are the enemy. They fear my work, and that is good. They fear my book, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. […]

Watch them choke on their own vomit.

Geller’s only factual issue with the report is that “I have not received one cent from any of these funders they attempt to tie me to.” But the report never claims that Geller receives any money from the seven funders who contributed $42.6 million to the Islamophobia network. Indeed, Geller is probably one of the few individuals who requires little money from outside donors. Last year, The New York Times reported:

Ms. Geller got nearly $4 million when [she and Michael H. Oshry] divorced in 2007, and when Mr. Oshry died in 2008, there was a $5 million life-insurance policy benefiting her four daughters, said Alex Potruch, Mr. Oshry’s lawyer. She also kept some proceeds from the sale of Mr. Oshry’s $1.8 million house in Hewlett Harbor.

Geller, much like her colleagues Robert Spencer and David Horowitz, uses the report as an opportunity to solicit readers for contributions while never meaningfully challenging the factual accuracy of the 130-page report on Geller and her anti-Muslim allies. While unsurprising and certainly not out of the norm for Geller, her response to the report underlines the bigotry, hatred and intolerance exhibited by many member of the Islamophobia network.

Last night, ThinkProgress editor-in-chief Faiz Shakir discussed the Islamophobia network with Keith Olbermann:

Fox’s Bolling: ‘We’re Keeping An Eye On’ Chris Christie’s Muslim Judge Appointee

By Ben Armbruster | Source

Yesterday on Fox Business, host Eric Bolling ran an entire 7-minute Islamophobic, fearmongering segment hyping the myth that Sharia law is creeping its way into the United States. As evidence, Bolling cited a Muslim American who in 2009 “ran over the daughter because of her unwillingness to partake in an arranged marriage.” Bolling also referenced New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) decision to appoint a Muslim judge to the state’s bench:

BOLLING: We have a judge right across the river, Chris Christie is appointing a Muslim judge, and this may or may not happen, he may have a completely objective view on American case law. It remains to be seen. We’ll keep our eye on it.

Bolling’s fear-mongering panel featured Fox’s go-to Muslim basher Bo Dietl, whose contribution to the segment included expressing his concern that “judges who are from the Islam can become judges in America.” Media Matters has the video:

Bolling doesn’t seem to be phased by the fact that the “creeping Sharia” canard has absolutely no basis in reality. But beyond that, he should also check the facts in his evidence. Here’s what actually happened with the father who killed his daughter for refusing an arranged marriage:

On Feb. 22, Faleh al-Maleki was convicted of killing his daughter. … Prosecutors had pressed a first-degree murder charge. They characterized his actions as an “honor killing,” a controversial term that refers to a family member or members killing a relative, usually a girl or young woman, whose behavior is judged to have tarnished the family honor. … The jury found Faleh guilty of the lesser charge of second-degree murder, finding that he didn’t plan the act in advance.

As for Christie, he said recently that he’s “disgusted” by the “ignorance” of the right-wing attacks on him for appointing a Muslim judge. “This Sharia Law business is crap,” he said, “I’m tired of dealing with crazies.”

Robert Spencer Admits “Islam Makes” Most Muslims “Very Moral”

Source: Loonwatch.com

It wasn’t long ago that Robert Spencer, a leader in the anti-Muslim movement, was arguing that “the only good Muslim was a bad Muslim.” Now he has suddenly “reversed” his position on Islam during a recent interview with Fox News’ Alan Colmes. Colmes did a pretty good job challenging Spencer on the holes in his anti-Muslim ideology: his double standards vis-à-vis Islam and Christianity, his downplaying the peaceful teachings of the Quran, his support for Pam Geller’s extremist and “meaningless” rhetoric, etc. Spencer spent most of his time on defense, often interrupting Colmes just when he was making a solid point.

Colmes could have done a better job refuting the point Spencer tried to make with the case of would-be terrorist Faisal Shazad. Spencer claimed that Shazad wholly and independently justified his actions by Islam when, in fact, he justified his deeds citing American foreign policy. This is what he really said:

“I want to plead guilty 100 times because unless the United States pulls out of Afghanistan and Iraq, until they stop drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen and stop attacking Muslim lands, we will attack the United States and be out to get them.”

Shahzad cited the numerous civilian deaths as primary justification for perpetrating retaliatory terrorism, along with vague platitudes about the Quran, justice, and the afterlife; very little to do with normative Islamic teachings and mostly to do with drone strikes and civilian “collateral damage,” as Danios pointed out. Tellingly, Shahzad plainly violated mainstream Islamic teachings about fulfilling pledges and being a good neighbor. The judge rightly told him, “I do hope you spend time in prison thinking about whether the Koran gives you the right to kill innocent people.”

If this is the example Spencer wants to cite, then that’s a debate that I am happy to have. As in this case, Spencer’s own examples often turn out to be proofs against him. The raw data is simply on the side of those people, Muslim and non-Muslim, who wish to live together in a peaceful democratic society. Perhaps Colmes can be forgiven for not pressing him on this point (after all, he does work for Fox News). But it was this exchange at the end of the interview that was truly magical:

Robert Spencer Finally Admits Islam Makes Muslims Good People:

Colmes: Robert, excuse me, is there anything positive about Islam you could say?

Spencer: Islam makes a lot of people be very moral and upright and live fine lives.

Colmes: That’s good right? And wouldn’t that be true of most Muslims?

Spencer: I would certainly say so, yeah, I never have denied it.

At some point, Spencer must have had a “change of heart” and decided all his years of attacking Muslims as a whole, the Prophet, and the Quran wasn’t really fair. More likely, however, is that when pressed in public on his anti-Muslim ideology, Spencer retreats to the “political correctness” he regularly derides in liberals, lest the viewers think he is nothing but a hard-nosed bigot. Because I remember specifically when Spencer denied the fact that most American Muslims are normal, ethical people:

“I have written on numerous occasions that there is no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists. While Americans prefer to imagine that the vast majority of American Muslims are civic-minded patriots who accept wholeheartedly the parameters of American pluralism, this proposition has actually never been proven.”

And again, who can tell the difference between peaceful Muslims and terrorists? Spencer observes:

“I have maintained from the beginning of this site and before that that there is no reliable way to distinguish a “moderate” Muslim who rejects the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism from a “radical” Muslim who holds such ideas, even if he isn’t acting upon them at the moment. And the cluelessness and multiculturalism of Western officialdom, which make officials shy away from even asking pointed questions, only compound this problem.”

Spencer had written on numerous occasions and maintained from the beginning that there is no practical difference between the average American Muslim on the street and an indoctrinated, foreign, psychotic jihadist. Did he really forget he said all that? Because Anders Behring Breivik, the Norway shooter, didn’t forget when he justified killing liberal race traitors, echoing Spencer’s talking points about multiculturalism and Islam:

“Tell me one country where Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslims without the Jihad

…How many thousands of new Europeans must die, how many one hundred thousand European women should be raped, millions robbed and tractor discarded before you understand that multiculturalism + Islam does not work?”

And again the killer repeats Spencer’s belief in the alleged absence of moderate Muslims:

“And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called “moderate Muslims”. There is moderate Nazis, too, that does not support fumigation of rooms and Jews. But they’re still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?…. For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies. Not all Muslims, Nazis and Marxists are conservative, most are moderate. But does it matter? A moderate Nazi might, after having experienced fraud, choose to be conservative. A moderate Muslim can, after being refused to enter a club, be conservative, etc.”

And where in the world could he have gotten the idea that Muslims and Nazis are the same?

Is Spencer willing to acknowledge the plethora of errors in his long track record of extremist hate speech, or are his comments to Colmes yet another implementation of Islamic taqiyya on his part? Taking a lesson out of the jihadist playbook, are you Robert? Judging by your latest round of hateful vitriolic spew, in which you railed against the “propaganda line” that “Islam is a religion of peace,” it seems like you are.

Who’s Behind The Movement To Ban Shariah Law?

Source
Download the Interview

In the past year, more than two dozen states have considered legislation that would prevent the use of Shariah, the Islamic code that guides Muslim beliefs and actions, in courtrooms. Several prominent Republicans, including Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann have all recently warned about the threat of Shariah law. In Tennessee, lawmakers recently debated whether to classify suspected Islamic terrorist groups as “Shariah organizations.”

On today’s Fresh Air, New York Times investigative reporter Andrea Elliott joins Terry Gross for a conversation about the state-level movement to ban Shariah law. Elliott recently profiled David Yerushalmi, the Brooklyn lawyer who started the anti-Shariah movement and who she says, “has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah.”

“What was intriguing to me was how this man, who was really a fringe figure, came to cultivate allies and influence people at such high levels — former military and intelligence officials, leaders of national organizations, presidential candidates — how did he make that leap?” says Elliott. “And I think part of the answer is, in person he comes across not as the erratic character as some might suspect but as a sophisticated man who is convinced by his idea and has an endless appetite for defending those ideas.”

One of the people Yerushalmi first connected with was Frank Gaffney, the president of the conservative think tank Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C. In 2010, Gaffney — who once suggested that President Obama might be a secret Muslim — wrote an op-ed suggesting that then-Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan should be investigated because of her support for Shariah law.

“Gaffney really became [Yerushalmi’s] bridge to a whole network of think-tanks and government officials, including Jim Woolsey, a former director of the C.I.A,” says Elliott. “I would say Gaffney catapulted Yerushalmi onto a new platform of influence and their aim seems to have been to get people in circles of influence to understand Shariah in this totally new frame, as a totalitarian threat akin to what the United States faced during the Cold War.”

Enacting Legislation At The State Level

In 2008, Gaffney and Yerushalmi set up meetings with high-level officials at the Treasury Department. The two men argued that the Islamic financial industry lacked transparency. But the briefings went nowhere, says Elliott, and they began looking for other avenues — just as the Tea Party movement was taking off.

“Yerushalmi saw an opening there, in that people were calling for smaller government and greater state autonomy,” says Elliott. “So he started to focus on state legislatures and began drafting the model legislation that would later sweep across the country.”

By the summer of 2010, anti-Shariah laws were being introduced in several state legislatures. Louisiana, Arizona and Tennessee have all passed versions of a bill restricting judges from consulting Shariah or broader categories of religious, foreign or international laws. Voters in Oklahoma passed an amendment to the Constitution banning courts from considering Shariah.

“It’s hard to say what the legal impact of these laws will be because the establishment clause of the Constitution prevents from the government from favoring or targeting one religion,” says Elliott. “The Oklahoma amendment which singles out Shariah has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge pending the outcome of a lawsuit that argues that it infringes on religious freedom. But the three other laws that have passed are worded neutrally enough that they could withstand Constitutional scrutiny.”

Interview Highlights

On what Shariah law is

“Shariah literally means the way to the watering hole and is more commonly referred to as ‘the way.’ It is, most simply put, the law that guides Islamic beliefs and actions. But when Westerners think of a legal code, they tend to think of a fixed set of laws and Shariah is a lot more fluid than that, in part because there’s no governing authoring in Islam. So while Islam’s four major schools of law agree on many basic areas of Shariah, there are many areas that lack consensus and there’s really a whole spectrum around the world in ways Muslims observe Shariah law. One of the key points is missing in this debate is that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries like the United States, there is broad agreement that Shariah requires them to abide by the laws of the land in exchange for the right to worship freely.”

On creating a debate about Shariah

“[Yerushalmi] really set out on what might seem like an impossible mission, which was to make this very arcane and complex subject of Shariah a focus of national scrutiny. This was a word that was not even part of our vernacular a few years ago. … A lot of people would argue that what has come of this is not really a substantive debate about Shariah as much as a shouting match. It’s a shouting match that involves really simple messages on both sides — ‘Shariah is bad’ or ‘Shariah is a non-issue.’ But the leaders of this campaign really talk about it in a most preemptive way than a prescriptive way. What they say they’re doing is trying to prevent Shariah from having the kind of influence seen in Europe, particularly in England, where the Muslim community is far less integrated and where there are Shariah tribunals.”

The Stream: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

Source | By Ahmed Shihab Eldin

As the Brotherhood aims for a position in the new government, Egyptian youth discuss the topic of Islamist politics.

“You can’t dictate democracy,” I said to a woman from the US who fearfully asked me: “But what if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt?” The question came at the end of a panel hosted by the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York City.

This was one of several dozen times I had been asked the question in the months since Mubarak was overthrown by a popular uprising in the Arab world’s most populous nation.

With parliamentary and presidential elections due in September, the question is both relevant and timely, but as fearful as some in the West may be, it is nearly impossible to envision a scenario wherein the Muslim Brotherhood will not play a substantial role in governing Egypt following these elections.

“The Brotherhood is a formidable movement, as old as the state itself in Egypt – and it will disappear only if Egyptians themselves stop endorsing it,” says Larbi Sadiki, a Senior Lecturer in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter.

“The MB is not some kind of clerical temple of wisdom – it has doctors, engineers, lawyers, merchants, business people, teachers, the army and police force … all of Egypt is represented in its power base.”

Despite, or perhaps in part because of, Mubarak’s banning of the group for decades, the Brotherhood is undoubtedly both the most organised and most influential political group inside Egypt.

For that reason, the group is poised to secure a large number of seats in parliament, if not a majority.

So what then if the Brotherhood comes to power?

What does this mean for Egypt’s secular and Coptic communities, many of whom played a central role in the very revolution that overthrew Mubarak, and in doing so, allowed for the Brotherhood to finally be recognised as a political party on June 6.

The answer may lie in the political reality that in a democratic election, with power, comes accountability.

“The MB has always been the party that exercised self-restraint,” Sadiki said.

The Brotherhood has been positioning itself to be a loud and influential voice in whatever new government takes shape – but careful to not be seen as leading or attempting to take over the government.

“They will now seek to increase their share of the vote but never to create political imbalance. They are capable of pragmatism and they will seek to form ‘coalitions’ inside parliament instead of seeking an outright majority on their own right,” Sadiki said.

This strategic move is designed to deflect criticism from within Egypt’s galvanised public, during times that will be marked by struggle, before stability and prosperity is established. But it also gives the West and the international community less reason to withhold economic assistance – including in the form of tourism, on which Egypt will remain heavily dependent in the coming years.

The question of whether political Islam and democracy can co-exist is not a new debate in the Muslim world, but one that, for Egyptians – to face the question at the polls in September – demands serious consideration.

It is the Egyptian people’s right to decide, as their ultimate decision will have enormous consequences on the entire region.

Provided elections are both fair and transparent, their right to decide must be respected.

“US administrations should worry about the absence of democracy – not the absence of Islamists from Arab politics,” Sadiki said.

“The former is more detrimental to Arab citizenry, the US and the world. This has been demonstrated by the misrule of people like Gaddafi, Bashir, Saleh, Mubarak and Ben Ali. Democracy means accepting, periodically, the verdict of the people.”

Given the new era of civic engagement that is spilling over from the virtual realm on Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere into the streets, the West must trust that, should the Brotherhood be elected to office and leads the country astray, they will be held accountable and find themselves fatefully matched with Mubarak.

“I have confidence that the Egyptians and Tunisians have now invented a brand of politics that no single party, ideology or movement can hijack from the people,” Sadiki said.

‘TweetNadwa’

On Sunday, the question of Islam’s role in Egyptian public and political life was the focus of Cairo’s first-ever “TweetNadwa”, a meeting organised for activists, bloggers and tweeps from across Egypt’s political spectrum to exchange – in 140 seconds at a time – their opinions on the matter.

The discussion focused on the subject of Islamist youth and included some of the country’s most well-known examples – including Ibrahim Hudhaibi, Abdel Moneim Mahmoud and Ahmed Samir.

The gathering, which took place in Dokki, Cairo, was intended to be an extension of the many 140-character message conversations around politics, society and religion taking place in the Twitterverse, as young Egyptians explore the various paths for Egypt’s future.

The success of the event can be seen as a modern and technological manifestation of the will for democratic self-determination. A healthy public discourse is flourishing online and is now finding its way into social life.

Alaa Abd El Fattah (@alaa), who organised the event, said his primary intention was to help facilitate new conversations and new contacts for the participants.

“One day I was watching an Muslim Brotherhood leader on TV and Twitter was full of commentary on what he was saying,” El Fattah said. “I realised that all my Ikhwani friends have basically left the group or are highly critical of it.”

Despite it being the week of exams for local universities across Cairo, the venue was already over capacity 20 minutes before the gathering was scheduled to start.

While the main speakers were all from the Brotherhood, independant Salafis were also there, though in fewer numbers and with less of a concrete political platform.

The first half of the meeting consisted of El Fattah putting tough questions to his guests including: “Are you an Islamist?”, “Is Egypt an Islamist nation?” and “Why did you leave the Muslim Brotherhood?”

The answers to the final question highlighted the most pressing of several challenges facing the Brotherhood today – the growing divisions among its youth.

More than 70 per cent of the population in Egypt is under the age of 29, and they make up more than 80 per cent of the country’s unemployed citizens.

The Brotherhood’s youth may still be part of the organisation, but they are first and foremost part of a generation that, like the #TweetNadwa participants, interacts with a wide range of individuals and groups through the internet and social media as well as books and satellite television.

“The youth of the MB were the first to use the internet to communicate different political messages, at once displaying connection with their peers in terms of age and ideological affinity with the Muslim Brotherhood in terms of championing democratic government and loyalty to Islamic identity and ideals,” Sadiki said.

This generation is exposed to leftist, liberal and Islamic thinkers. This generation has struggled to find jobs for decades.

Large swaths of the Brotherhood’s youth have been inspired by the Justice and Development party in Turkey which just won a landslide victory in this month’s general elections.

Many of Egypt’s youth members ignored calls by the group’s elite members to boycott the Friday demonstrations that eventually led to Mubarak’s ousting. Instead, the youth joined other political parties and groups in Tahrir square, indicating that unity against the corruption of the Mubarak’s government trumped political divisions and strategies.

“TweetNadwa had the same magic we had in Tahrir. People were just happy we could be together,” El Fattah said.

“They disagreed, even discussed their fear of each other, but if you treat people with expectations that they’ll act as individuals, they will – and they will surprise you. If you insist on boxing them in categories, they will
eventually fit it comfortably.”

The general consensus among former and current Muslim Brotherhood youth was that they felt the organisation was limited in scope.

“There was a feeling that the Muslim Brotherhood is not big enough to contain their aspirations, and not relaxed enough to accept their questioning minds,” El Fattah said.

In June, the Brotherhood created the Freedom and Justice Party and announced that it was looking to create new alliances with liberal groups in the hopes of creating a path for a healthy democratic transition.

The move marked an effort to preserve their political positioning as the most popular political party at a time when divisions have been emerging primarily within the group’s youth members.

Can the Brotherhood appeal to Egyptian youth?

After years of political suppression, assassinations and the mass imprisonment of its members by Egypt’s government, the group is aiming to take measures to avoid international isolation.

“This is a very dangerous political period,” Vice President of Freedom and Justice Essam Al Arian said. “We want to pass the next few months safely with the help of others.”

This may lend some explanation to the recent news that the Brotherhood was aligning itself with the prominent liberal Wafd Party, which could very well increase its chances of winning a majority in parliament.

One of the Brotherhood’s younger members – who asked to remain anonymous due to what he called “extreme political sensitivities” within the group – said that the leaders of the Brotherhood are not concerned with a unified Egypt or a particularly prosperous Egypt, but simply with electoral victory for the Freedom and Justice Party.

“The youth of the Muslim Brotherhood shuns the culture of secrecy within the MB and this is part of the problems arising today,” Sadiki said.

“The Muslim Brotherhood prefers quiet politics.”

Islam Lotfi, who played an instrumental role in organising the protests that eventually ousted Mubarak, has joined other young members criticising party leaders, including Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie for claiming that the ousting of Mubarak from power could be seen as “divine retribution” for the jailing of members of the Brotherhood in years past.

“What the Supreme Guide said is not true, because members of other political waves were also detained, such as communists,” Lotfi, one of the younger members of the group, said.

Moreover, while many of the youth members are calling for reforms, including the democratisation of the political structure and increased representation for women – it remains unclear whether the leadership will fully support these proposals.

Despite the divisions between the elder, more traditional members and the youth, the group is likely to make significant gains. For years they have garnered support from the largely rural and poverty-stricken parts of the country where, much like Hamas has done in Gaza, they have launched many social welfare projects including healthcare and educational services, despite being banned from politics.

As the Brotherhood decentralises their power by seeking out alliances in order to appeal to broader segments of the population more divisions and internal conflicts within the group have emerged.

Although the Brotherhood announced that they would not be running any presidential candidates, several prominent Brotherhood members have recently announced their intention to run for president.

Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh announced his candidacy – in direct defiance of calls from group leaders forbidding any Brotherhood members from supporting the candidacy of a Brotherhood contender.

Despite efforts by the Brotherhood – and other groups based on an Islamic platform – to acknowledge the necessity of a civil state, wherein national unity must trump political rivalries, and where the people themselves are the source of all government authority, many are still wary that Islamist parties are looking to enforce strict interpretations of Islamic law.

The Brotherhood’s leadership has made it clear that their politics will be governed by Sharia, one way or another.

In June, Khairat al-Shater, the Brotherhood’s Deputy General Guide, said the group was planning to develop an Islamic studies centre, aiming to rebuild the principles of Islamic Sharia.

Also, in June, the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie said that opposing an Islamic basis for Egyptian governance was morally wrong.

“An Islamic reference for a civil state is the only guarantee for all Egyptians, but to call for a civil state without an Islamic reference is contradictory and against ethics and morality,” Badie said.

For the Muslim Brotherhood, elections cannot come soon enough, so as to limit the time some of the newer parties running on Islamic platforms have to organise their campaigns and offer an alternative.

Ibrahim Houdaiby may have summed up the challenge facing the Brotherhood best in a recent interview with the Christian Science Monitor.

“The Brotherhood has two options. The first is to be a rigid organisation that insists on having only one legal political manifestation, and in that case the Brotherhood would eventually collapse.”

“The other is to be a more flexible organisation, allowing different political manifestations and retreating from the political domain to the civil domain and operating in the background of society to shape … social roles and so forth. In this case, it would grow more powerful. It would be able to capitalise as an organisation on the social capital.”

Ahmed Shihab Eldin is a journalist and multimedia producer who currently co-hosts The Stream on Al Jazeera English.

Role of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt Unclear

Source
By Daniella Peled – The Arab Spring

Religious movement expected be major player in coming elections, but its policies remain ambiguous.

The Muslim Brotherhood, MB, has long been a leading opposition force in Egypt. Following the fall of the Mubarak regime, it is expected to become a major political player, but there remain serious concerns over its possible agenda. Issandr El-Amrani, a leading Cairo-based journalist and blogger, looks at public attitudes towards the movement.

As Egypt prepares for the transition to democracy, is the MB perceived as an emerging political force?

A lot of people are questioning what the political map is going to look like and there is nervousness over the possibility of the success of the MB. They are the only well-organised opposition group and look like they might dominate the coming elections.

There are fears among the elite and among the Coptic Christians too – legitimate fears, because the MB are unclear as to their position on a number of issues. Do they advocate a system of Islamic punishments like they do in Saudi Arabia? How exactly do they envision the role of non-Muslim minorities in public life?

The MB is very dedicated to the issue of Palestine and some people are nervous that Egypt could find itself isolated as a result of this stance. It is not that people love Israel here but the risks associated with the MB stance are severe, for instance, losing United States support and financial aid, which we simply can’t afford.

There are some things, such as opposition to the president being a non-Muslim or a woman, and the provision that the al-Azahr Islamic university play a supervisory role over legislation passed by parliament, to ensure it is Sharia-compliant, that they have shown willingness to change. They clearly don’t want to scare people off.

But there is a great deal of ambiguity, and the MB has been sending contradictory messages.

For instance, since the fall of Mubarak, demonstrations have continued, with people angry over the slow pace of change by the army. The MB pledged support for the ongoing protests. Yet two weeks ago, the MB distanced itself from them, arguing that the army needs to be supported through this period of transition.

And following recent renewed violence during Friday protests in Tahrir Square – in which two people were killed and more than 70 injured – the MB made it clear they did not want to antagonise the army. They are hedging their bets as they work on revising their political programme, which remains controversial.

They do also have to be careful because the law still says that there can’t be a religious political party, and it is still unclear what they can get away with.

As the MB transforms itself into an official political party, are there any internal divisions or tensions emerging?

The MB announced that it will form a Freedom and Justice party and is in the process of arranging the paperwork to make it into a legal entity. They are still arguing over how many seats they will contest – some elements want to go for 30 per cent, while others are more ambitious and say they should compete for 50 per cent.

They do seem confident that they are going to do well, as they are disciplined and well-organised, in contrast to the secular groups. But there are splits within the MB too, and offshoots opposing the current direction of the leadership. One, for instance, is led by Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh and Ibrahim Zafarani, and is gaining the support of more liberal, progressive elements and appealing more to a younger following. It’s still not clear, though, where these offshoots might be heading.

The MB presents itself as always having had a moderate message. They argue that they are not intending to revolutionise society or to include radical new policies – they don’t even necessarily aim to win a majority of seats, and they currently still say they are not going to run a presidential candidate.

Their aim, as they see it, is not to get seats in the cabinet or to form the next government, but to build an Islamic society from the ground up. They want an overall ideological reform of society – first in Egypt, but also spreading to the rest of the Middle-East, resulting in an Islamic model. This obviously scares people, particularly as there are certainly totalitarian aspects to this vision.

While the MB presents itself as a moderate grouping, are there concerns about more extremist elements within the organisation?

No matter how urbane or sophisticated some of the MB leaders may be, there is a worry about the base of the movement. This includes Wahhabi influence, which is a fundamentally undemocratic movement.

Amongst the ranks of the MB are also those with ultra-conservative views which shock many Egyptians even though Egypt is a conservative society. These include things like the full-face veil – something you barely saw in Egypt 20 years ago and is now quite common.

There is widespread acceptance that the MB has the right to form a political party. I know many members of the MB, and they are very respectable people, they have a sincere wish to do something for their country, but I don’t agree with their views.  

Daniella Peled is an IWPR editor.