All Entries Tagged With: "Ikhwan"

Commentary: Muslim Brotherhood And Democracy

We received a comment from Michael Topp, who opened discussion on very important issues that related to the MB and Hassan Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood who was assassinated in 1949.

• I was very surprised to learn, that Al-Banna sympathized with the concept of democracy but “condemned the concept of plurality of the parties”. The plurality of parties is a basic ingredient of a democracy; without this plurality of parties there is no democracy at all. For me it is therefore quite doubtful if Al-Banna had any understanding of a democracy. As the Muslim Brotherhood is still under the strong influence of al-Banna, there are doubts if they really, inside their hearts, accept the concept of democracy.

It is clear that the Egyptian political environment during Hassan Albanna’s presence was very unclear. Most of the parties existing during this time were struggling against each other and working in favour of the British occupation. Hassan AlBanna did not criticize the “concept” of parties; he criticized the situations, attitudes and policies of the mainstream parties. In fact in 1994, the Muslim Brotherhood explained their attitude towards plurality (Link: Arabic).
The Muslim Brotherhood believes in democracy. They have participated in numerous elections including parliamentary, Shura, trade union, teaching clubs and student elections. The MB condemns all forms of violence promoting only tolerant and peaceful methods in their call for reform

• On one hand you say that the “attitude of the Muslim Brotherhood supports democracy”. On the other hand you say “concerning the democratic practices, Al-Banna had a vision on the constitutional and the parliamentary affairs, the Muslim Brotherhood believes that the main source of their edicts is the Qur’an and the Sunnah … Moreover, most genres of knowledge that are related to Islam carry the seal of the age they were created in, and the people they were made up by. Therefore, the Muslim countries should resort to that kind of pure system. We should also approach Islam in the same manner as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), his companions, and the early Muslims did.” In the 7th century there was no place in the world where a democracy was practiced. On the Arab peninsula it was the Prophet (pabboh) who met with the leaders of the Arabic clans and then they took political decisions. In those days there existed no election and no parliament, only a small group of leaders ruled over the country. So if you want to establish “political practices” like in the 7th century again there are doubts about what the Muslim Brotherhoods feel in their hearts regarding democracy.

One of the Muslim Brotherhood’s main goals is to promote moderate Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood perceives Islam as a sustainable source of ideas and policies. It believes that Islam has no identified shape of authority, Khilafah was the nature of its ages, and Muslims will develop their own style of leadership. When the Muslim Brotherhood calls for the return of the Khilafah, they are referring to their call for the concepts of justice, unity and equality.
The Quran and Sunna are the holy texts for Muslims to guide them in practicing their religion and living their lives. The texts do not force any regime or political regulations on the Muslims.

• You mention that “the members of this movement embrace that class of Islamic-oriented democracy … and they are involved in the political arena in accordance with the codes of Islam that regulate all matters of life.” If the Qur’an and the Sunnah regulate all matters of life, what do you need a Parliament for? If Qur’an and Sunnah regulate all matters, you only need some wise men who know the Qur’an and the Sunnah by heart and who can find within a short time the sentence within the Qur’an and Sunnah that is related to a problem which arises in modern times. But this would not be democracy, it would be a theocracy – it would be something like what we have in Iran today.

Generally, Quran and Sunna offers some kind of life assurance. They have answers for millions of problems and issues, they dealt with the lives of Muslims throughout the last 14 centuries. Islam offers a lifestyle with no limitations. The holy texts simply manage the general guidelines of laws. The Muslim Brotherhood does not make its decisions solely from the Quran and Sunna; rather they are inspired by the “Maqased” or purposes of Sharia!
Sharia law is concerned with managing peoples’ lives by managing the purposes of their decisions. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood believes in.
With regards to theocracy, the Muslim Brotherhood has confirmed numerous times that they are not aiming to reach a theocratic state, they clearly want a civil state, theocracy has no affiliation with the Islamic philosophy. The Muslim Brotherhood does not force people on anything even issues mentioned in Quran or Sunna. This is the function of the legislative council and parliament, the passing of or rejection to the laws and bills.

• What I missed a little bit in your report was something about the approach of the Muslim Brotherhood towards a free press and towards foreign investment in Egypt . These issues are discussed here in Germany and it is not really known how the Muslim Brotherhood would handle these issues. Maybe you can write about this in one of your next issues.

This is a very important point; the Muslim Brotherhood has a permanent stance in its call for promoting the freedom of expression. The Muslim Brotherhood may refuse some of the theses by intellectuals and academics, but they would never ban them from writing or publishing, especially since the Muslim Brotherhood understands well the effect of repression, being the most targeted opposition group.
The Muslim Brotherhood has united in solidarity with journalists who were referred to courts because of their opinions. They have also supported the arrested Bloggers and victims of free speech. including Kareem Amer.

The Incredible story of Youssef Nada

Under the cover of the « war against terror », the United States and the European Union have granted unlimited powers to secret services and police. Emergency measures which were introduced on a provisional basis in 2001, outside any judiciary control, have become permanent. Since September 2001, at least 80,000 people, mainly Muslim, would have been kidnapped, kept in secret prisons, and tortured by CIA and FBI agents. Hundreds of others have been put on the UN « black list ». That’s what happened to the businessman Youssef Nada, 77 years old, an Italian citizen of Egyptian origin, accused by U.S. President, G.W Bush of financing Al-Qaeda. Two judiciary investigations resulted in a non-suit, but Mr. Nada didn’t get his name deleted from the UN « black list » (*). His assets remain frozen; he is barred from travelling to or transiting in any country. He can’t go outside the tiny enclave of Campione – an Italian enclave inside Swiss territory – where Silvia Cattori went to meet him.

Silvia Cattori : Once he knew, in detail, your incredible story, Mr. Dick Marty denounced the injustice which is inflicted on you. He reported on your case, 19th March 2007 to the Council of Europe [1]. Despite his report, you remain on the « black list » of people suspected of assisting terrorism, deprived of freedom because my country continues to uphold the UN sanctions against you. You are living in Italy, yet being kept as hostage by Switzerland?! I want to tell you that many of us are outraged by the martyrdom that Switzerland continues to inflict on you.

Youssef Nada : You can’t say that it is “the country, Switzerland”. The citizens are one thing, and politics is another. It is true that, in Switzerland, the people here are tolerant and peaceful, and neutral. Not only is the Government neutral, but the people themselves are neutral. But Mr. Dick Marty proved that he is one of the best Swiss citizens. Really, you feel when you read and hear what he says, that he is a humanitarian. The risk he took when he followed the “Extraordinary Renditions” case [2], nobody took before him. All the politicians know what is going on, but no one has the courage to speak. He was the only one who had the courage. Although I respect all the Swiss people, I respect Mr. Marty more, and not only because of the attitude he had towards me. His courage when he talks about people who are helpless in front of the biggest power is unique.

Silvia Cattori : Mr. Marty’s behaviour was exemplary; but unfortunately not the behaviour of the media. You implicate them on your personal website [3]. Does that mean that the journalists are apologists in support of this war?

Youssef Nada : Some journalists do have a special agenda, which they just mix up. They take part from me, part from their preconceived ideas, and make their own story. However, most journalists and media are honest. You can’t generalise. There are a lot of honest people within the media, doing their job and looking for the facts and for the interest of the public. Every month, I speak to about 15 to 20 journalists. TV journalists came: two from France, two from England, one from Austria, two from Germany, two from Italy, one from Spain, others from the Middle East and from the Far East. Some of these journalists are very honest. In fact, some of them, even without seeing me, defended my case in a correct way.

Silvia Cattori : It must have been a terrible hardship for you. Every day, you were confronted by new accusations, all more unlikely and overwhelming than the last, without being able to answer them!

Youssef Nada : In business, we have a lot of surprises. I was in business for about 55 years: naturally, every week, I had a surprise. After many years, I became anti-surprise. I am at the end of my life. For me, what happens now is as important as what could happen tomorrow or the next day.

Silvia Cattori : On your website, among those journalists who must have hurt you, you mentioned Guido Olimpio [4], Richard Labévière [5], Sylvain Besson [6]. How do you reproach them in particular?

Youssef Nada : Those journalists that you just mentioned may have their own hidden agendas or they may be full of hate. They attacked me with lies. I have explained it on my website.

Silvia Cattori : Mr. Sylvain Besson wrote a book in which he makes serious accusations against you. And this book was published after 2005, when all the prosecutors’ files against you were closed for lack of evidence, plus the Swiss Federal Court blamed the Swiss Federal Prosecutor for his actions. Did you meet Mr. Besson?

Youssef Nada : I never accepted. He tried. Not only did he try; he came to the door, and rang the bell. I said to him: “I am sorry. I have already said to you on the phone that I shall not receive you”.

Silvia Cattori : According to you, why so many journalists were so dead set against you? Was it a mistake? Or had they a special agenda?

Youssef Nada : Some have a special agenda, and some might be working as spies for foreign services. I don’t know who is working for whom. But, they definitely made mistakes; definitely they were out of line. There is no doubt that they had a special agenda. I don’t want to elaborate more here, since I have a case against Mr. Guido Olimpio, and the Court is still working on it [7]. There is another big civil case for damages. The Court has accepted that the case will be transferred to the Milan Civil Court.

Silvia Cattori : Don’t all these anti-Muslim campaigns have a common root: the war of dispossession that Israel has been waging against its Arab neighbours since 1948? The accusations that Mr. Olimpio made against you in his article of 20th October 1997, where he claimed that you were financing Hamas might well have come from the Israeli secret services?

Youssef Nada : When Olimpio wrote this article, he was working in Milan for “Il Corriere della Sera”. In court, he said that he testified, in 1996 if I am not mistaken, in front of the U.S. Congress and at the Treasury department, about terrorism financing, and he included us [the Al-Tawqa bank and Mr. Nada] in it.

Silvia Cattori : Thus, one can guess that the baseless accusations of some journalists such as Guido Olimpio and Richard Labévière have been helping develop Islamophobia?

Youssef Nada : I don’t know if we should mention only those two names; it is a group of journalists and their accomplices, a spider’s web connected together [8]. I don’t trouble myself looking for them. Actually, I have to defend myself; that’s all. What they are doing, and for whom, is not interesting for me. Definitely, they have a special agenda. Which agenda? I don’t know. I never met them. If I saw them, maybe I could understand something. I don’t consider them very important. It is true that their accusations put some oil on the fire, but they are nothing for me.

Silvia Cattori : The aim of those who were campaigning against you, was it not to damage and to compromise, by using information coming from intelligence circles, the influential opponent to President Mubarak that you are? An opponent who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood who happen to be combated by Mubarak as well as by Israel? They spread the rumour that your bank was “giving money to Hamas” – a political group that Israel qualifies as a “branch of the Muslim Brotherhood”. Was it not a way to give President Bush a pretext to accuse Muslim charities of being linked to terrorism, thereby convincing the European countries to close them down? And, it did happen.

Youssef Nada : I’m not going to guess who is behind them . I don’t have the means to examine these questions.

Silvia Cattori : The strategy of the United States and Israel is very clear: to maintain an atmosphere of fear about “terrorists”, even if they have to fabricate them, in order for the public to accept the establishment of measures “to fight terrorism” outside of any legal framework.

Youssef Nada : What we heard, came from the US administration, not from Israel. Everyone accepted Bush’s comments: “Either you are with me or against me”, from the beginning. Then the followers said: “We are with you”.

Silvia Cattori : But, if the European States accepted so easily the establishment of emergency measures was there not a successful propaganda campaign regarding the “Islamist threat” aided by the media, of which you are also a victim?

Youssef Nada : That “terrorist threat” is nonsense. In Europe, for example, in the last 30 years, we struggled against Baader – Meinhof, the Brigate Rosse, the ETA, Cosa Nostra, and the IRA. All these terrorist events that happened in Europe, Europe was able to absorb. It didn’t ruin the life of the Europeans. The governments took special measures; they contained them, and absorbed them. And it passed. There has been a wave of crimes – criminals were there, and it’s true that it was organised crime – but the democracy and the States with legal measures were able, through the law, to absorb and to contain them without going outside the law.

But, when something happens in the United States – nobody knows even now who was behind the September 11 attacks, maybe Usama Ben Laden, maybe others, I don’t know – then the entire world has to pay the price!

Silvia Cattori : In his book entitled “Innocent Victims in the Global War on Terror”, Dr. M. A. Salloomi [9] has documented that the United States and Western countries are freezing the funds of Islamic NGOs, and of Muslim Charity Organisations, under the pretext that they finance terrorism. One understands very clearly, through this study, that one of the aims of Israel and the U.S. was to ban all NGO financial and humanitarian aid to the victims of this “Global War on Terror”. These restrictions are part of the war waged by Israel and the United States on various fronts. They attack a country, starve its population, and wait for them to surrender. Today, the Muslim charity organisations in Palestine are penalised by these antiterrorist measures, which hit also Hamas. Their funds are frozen.

Youssef Nada : Unfortunately, this is a misunderstanding from the West. If it is true that some of those terrorists happened to be Muslim, that doesn’t mean that they are following Islam.

I don’t speak about Hamas; it’s another case. The word “Hamas” is not part of my dictionary. Hamas anyhow is out of the question; I don’t talk about them, absolutely, because I don’t want more problems, and my case is still open. I don’t speak about this movement, because, as you know, one of the main accusations that the US authorities made against me was the one made by Olimpio that we were helping Hamas.

The US treasury copied what this journalist falsely said that “the Bank, Al-Taqwa, donated 70 million dollars to Hamas”. First of all, how is that possible, when the capital of the bank was just 50 million dollars? The second thing is that we are regulated, we have an auditor, and the auditor is one of the great three auditors in the world: Deloitte & Touche. They aren’t blind; when they investigate and audit our accounts, they can see everything. Finally, we are presenting all our auditors’ reports to the Central Bank of the Bahamas, they are also not blind.

But if we come back to the question of the “terrorists”; those people have nothing to do with Islam; those people, if they are indeed Muslim, well, they took Islam in their hands and twisted it to serve their agenda.

As for me, I have been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since I was 17 years old and will be until I die. This is one thing. But to say what some criminals are doing is accepted by Islam is completely incorrect. We don’t accept it, we condemned them – we aren’t afraid – we face everything, and we are ready to face even death. When we say that we condemn them, that means that we condemn them. And when we say that Islam doesn’t accept that, that means that the Islam, which we know and believe in, doesn’t accept what they do in the name of Islam.

Silvia Cattori : When Mr. Olimpio alleged that a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, you, was financing Hamas, it was not yet formally on any kind of “terrorist list” [10]. At the time, Israel’s propaganda was working to de-legitimise it, to try to force international bodies to consider it as “terrorist organisation”. You know what followed. Israel and the United States succeeded to brand Hamas beyond anyone’s expectations. [11]

Youssef Nada : When he said that I financed Hamas, he couldn’t prove it. That means that their accusations were false. If it were true, they should have been able to prove it. Let me tell you that I have been prosecuted in two countries, in Switzerland and in Italy. In Switzerland, the investigation of the Swiss prosecutor took from 7th November 2001 until 31st May 2005, when he was forced by the Federal Court to close the file against me.

In Italy, the Court also opened a file in November 2001, when Switzerland asked them to storm our house and bank, to raid it, and to take any documents they could find. When Switzerland closed the file, we asked the Italians to close the file as well and they closed it, without interrogating me ever.

The Swiss interrogated me about all the “Islamists” everywhere: about my taxes, about my nationality and how I obtained it, about my family, about my fortune; about everything, but they never said to me a single word about Hamas. Because they know that I have nothing to do with it.

Silvia Cattori : Unfortunately, the harm is done. The journalists that you have denounced made of you a suspicious person, just because you belong to the Muslim Brotherhood! This is a movement that these self-proclaimed “experts in terrorism” have been trying to say is inspired by an ideology that leads to fanaticism.

Youssef Nada : I am honoured to be part of the “Muslim Brotherhood”. I don’t see that it is something wrong. It’s an honour to me. Those who write these things about the “Muslim Brotherhood” are ignorant people who copy and repeat what the tyrant rulers of the Middle East say. Those are people who know nothing about the Muslim Brotherhood.

In politics, you’ll find a lot of things. That’s politics. When you add a political aspect to justice, everything will crash. That’s what is happening now.

Silvia Cattori : When you read articles trying to show that the Muslim Brotherhood is linked to Hamas, or Al-Qaeda, how do you respond to this kind of nonsense?

Youssef Nada : That’s their ignorance showing. Those who try to make that connection are ignorant. The Muslim Brotherhood is a philosophy, not one organisation. Every part of the Muslim Brotherhood, in any country, is completely independent from the others. I’ll give you an example: the Muslim Brotherhood in Morocco is in the government, not in the opposition. It’s not a matter of “branches”.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not an organisation; it’s a way of thinking. You can find, in the United States, people thinking the same way, convinced about this way of thinking, so they belong to the Muslim Brotherhood; you can find some in Russia, in China, in Indonesia, and that’s a fact. The CIA says that we are in 70 countries, and this is true. They miss only two, because we are actually in 72 countries. But every Muslim Brotherhood, in any country, is completely independent. No one can influence them. They may be together in their way of thinking, but not together in their actions.

Silvia Cattori : Today, the associations assisting the most deprived people in Muslim countries have no more money to distribute, because their funds have been frozen, criminalized. The population of Gaza, deprived from any assistance, is slowly dying.

Youssef Nada : Again you come to Palestine and Gaza; this subject I don’t want to talk about it. But when you talk about charity in any other places, charity is always in two parts: personal, and governmental. Governments can stop their aid, but personal charity? Nobody can stop it, because it’s going directly from the wealthy to the poor.

Silvia Cattori : Those who attacked you knew what political profit they could make by criminalizing a banker of Egyptian origin who happened to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Spreading the idea that this Arab-Egyptian bank, based in Lugano, was financing terrorists, was that not their main objective? They would make an “example” of you, thus giving them a case for some kind of planetary control?

Youssef Nada : But my case ended, my file is closed. No one could ever prove that I was linked to any terrorists or assisted terrorists anywhere in the world. My case is completely closed.

In spite of the fact that the enquiries opened against me resulted in no actions, I have no bank account. I don’t have even a credit card. I don’t have money [12]. I can’t go out of Campione. I have to fight, not only to get my name off the black list, but fight for my honour and my name as well.

Silvia Cattori : You are innocent, we know that today. But those who attacked you knew perfectly that you were not guilty at the time; I am trying to understand why they chose you as a target?

Youssef Nada : If you find out, let me know.

Silvia Cattori : Everything was so well organised! It can’t have been by chance?

Youssef Nada : It is the so-called “Intelligence”, who did the organising; not some individuals; it came from the States.

Silvia Cattori : «One is using terrorism to frighten people and to restrict fundamental freedoms» observed Mr. Dick Marty [13]. The United States and Israel – because your case started in 1997, years before the New-York attacks – needed to block any financing to Muslim charity organisations in order to hit resistance movements such as Hamas, They needed an example, which, amplified worldwide by the media, would prepare the world for future repressive measures.

Youssef Nada : But the file is closed. If, as you said, they wanted to make this as a case, it didn’t work. My case is closed.

Silvia Cattori : Your case is closed, true; but the Bush administration has succeeded in getting all the antiterrorist laws approved that it wanted. It has established surveillance systems designed for controlling all financing and to cut off most Muslim charity organisations from their financial resources. It has succeeded in destroying you, in preventing you even from traveling, and from enjoying your own assets.

Youssef Nada : OK, but there is a difference between whether they succeeded with me, or with the others. With the others, I’m not the advocate, because I don’t know. For me, they succeeded, yes. They succeeded to destroy me completely, yes.

But they didn’t prevent me from making charitable contributions; I had no charity organisation. I was a banker not a charity organisation. Originally, I am Egyptian. Egypt is full of poor people, people who are sleeping in the street and in the mud and who don’t have a loaf of bread. And I can assure you that, even when I had money and was assisting poor people, not even one penny went to anyone who is connected to violence, or working with those who were using violence.

Silvia Cattori : Since Mr. Sarkozy was elected to the French presidency, he has showered praises on the Egyptian President [14]. In a press conference at the Palais de l’Elysée, in January 2008, he declared: “We must help Mr. Mubarak in Egypt (…) because, what do we want over there, the Muslim Brotherhood?” What does that say to you?

Youssef Nada : That he is ignorant; he doesn’t know what is going on there. He doesn’t know who Mubarak is, and he doesn’t know what the Muslim Brotherhood is. He just adopted what other people have said; and that’s exactly what I wrote on my website. He is asking other people to inform him; he is ignorant, and he owes his ignorance from others who are more ignorant than him, who hand him the information so he sounds knowledgeable.

Silvia Cattori : But why always stigmatise the Muslim Brotherhood and portray M. Hosni Mubarak as some kind of savior?

Youssef Nada : You’ll have to ask them whether they are committed to democracy, or to tyrants and dictatorships. If they are committed to democracy, they will never say that Mubarak is good. If they accept dictatorship, it is clear why they support him.

Do you know what happened to me, in April, although I am barred to move from Campione? Mubarak sent me to a special military court [15] with another 40 people, and he said that I financed the Muslim Brotherhood with 1 billion dollars. Can you imagine that? I am here, confined, I can’t go out of Campione, I have no bank account, everything is frozen and controlled because of the UN sanctions, and Mubarak said that I financed the Muslim Brotherhood with one billion dollars!

How is it possible to affirm such a thing? The Court rejected the case and said – in the words of the Court – there is no case, and they dismissed it, and asked all 40 people to be released immediately. At the gate of the Court, they arrested the 40 people again and sent them to another Court. The second Court said the same. They re-arrested them three times. After the three times being rejected by the normal Courts, Mubarak decided on a military court; Mr. Mubarak sent civil people to the military court! The military court announced the sentence, which was written by Mubarak.

So, if M. Sarkozy said that he is supporting Mubarak, he obviously likes dictatorships. I guess that’s his kind of democracy, that’s his personal opinion about democracy. What can I say?

I received the verbal information which was presented to the Court; that came from Security. It is written: “After careful investigation, which took from us a long time, we discovered that Mr. Nada has the Swiss nationality” – which is a lie because I have the Italian, not the Swiss nationality. And secondly it is written: “He came out in Aljazeera attacking the President”.

Silvia Cattori : And this is true?

Youssef Nada : Yes.

Silvia Cattori : It is for your interviews on Aljazeera that Mr. Mubarak considers you an enemy?

Youssef Nada : He doesn’t say I’m an “enemy of a dictatorship”, but “enemy of Egypt”. He summarised for all of Egypt, 80 million Egyptian people in one person…himself.

Silvia Cattori : Are you well known in Egypt?

Youssef Nada : My case in known. Those who are following my case there know that I am innocent. I can hold my head up high and will never back down.

Silvia Cattori : The Court didn’t find anything against you, and you are imprisoned here in your house. How do you feel about that injustice?

Youssef Nada : I am used to it. Before coming to Europe – I came in 1969, I was 28 years old – I lived 20 years in a dictatorship. I am used to it. If they went against the legal action to put me in a trap here illegally, I am already accustomed to being treated illegally by dictators.

The Swiss Federal Court wrote in their decision to the Swiss prosecutor:
The accused must know what he is accused with, and you never told him what he is accused with.
It could be allowed to take a longer time, because you asked several legal assistants from a lot of other countries. Maybe they were late to give those answers. One year, two years, three years could be accepted but, after that, you aren’t allowed to keep the file open. Either you have evidence against Mr. Nada, and you present it to the Court, or, if you don’t have, close the file.

And on 31st May 2005 the Swiss Federal prosecutor declared there was no evidence and closed the file.

Silvia Cattori : You are deprived from your freedom but at least, you aren’t like the Egyptian prisoners, tortured!?

Youssef Nada : No, I have never been tortured. Mr. Besson claimed that I said that I was tortured. That’s not true; I never said that I had been tortured. I was arrested in Egypt. They just took us and put us in a concentrating camp, without any trial. The only question they asked me was “What is your name, father’s name, mother’s name, what is your address”. And, after two years, they released me, without any reasons.

It was repeated here in Switzerland; they confiscated my documents, blocked my account card, my movements, held me under house arrest in 1,6 square kilometers in Campione. Then they closed the investigative file and said that there is no evidence for illegal or wrongdoings; but here I am, still in the same position, as if there is evidence that I am guilty.

Where is the law? Where is democracy? Is it democratic Switzerland, the country that is famous for being committed to the law and human rights? If this injustice isn’t rectified, it will be a black point on the clean white history of this great country.

Silvia Cattori : You have lost everything because of journalists who linked you to Ben Laden, you and your bank. Do you intend to take a legal action against those people who completely ruined your life?

Youssef Nada : It is not the journalists; it was done by much bigger interests than those small people. They just threw some stones at me. The harm was done. My life is short. But I have to fight until I die. I have to fight in the courts to correct the injustice. I have good lawyers. They are assisting me where it is allowed, on condition that, when the court will decide damages, they will take their money owed to them for my defence. For example, in the case where I won in Bellinzona, the Court decided to pay the lawyer; they paid him about 80,000 Swiss francs.

I have no money, but I am one of a tribe of about 10,000 persons. They’ll never let me go hungry. They give me food but no money.

Silvia Cattori : Mr. Guido Olimpio, who is the origin the untrue accusations which were made against you, did he ever request to forgive him?

Youssef Nada : I don’t know whether he is actually the source of the accusations; but, as I told you, my head is up and will never come down. I was used to live under dictatorship, and I consider myself now under dictatorship.

Silvia Cattori : And Mr. Labévière, when you were declared not guilty by the Swiss and Italian Courts, did he ever show up to correct what he had said before, or did he disappear?

Youssef Nada : He disappeared. For me he is nothing more than a liar and not noble, I have forgotten about him; only when you or others bring up his name do I remember his lies and character.

Silvia Cattori : But the way in which some have described you is stupefying!

Youssef Nada : It is part of the wave of “Islamophobia”. We have a lot of examples for injustice in history. The Jews confronted it in the past; they were not treated as human beings. They were treated with injustice. And, by time, from down they came up. I believe, for those who treated them like with injustice, that there is a day of justice for what they did to the Jews.

Now, if it is happening with the Muslims, the same that what happened with the Jews will come. It is a circle; you don’t know what will come out. Justice is justice. It should be there for everyone, whether they are Jews, Muslims, Christians or others.

When I was born, I was born human, not Muslim. After that, I became Muslim. We have a lot of things that bind us together. I share the humanity with all those others who are there.

Now, there are some troubles with some Muslims in Europe, and all the concentration is on the behaviour of people of the lower class who are ignorant, poor, helpless, and couldn’t get an education or even bread in their countries, as their corrupt governments robbed all the wealth from them. On the other hand, Europe is full of educated Muslims in every part of society and professions, wealthy and middle class engineers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, bankers, professors, etc. They are law-abiding citizens, convinced about democracy, respecting others and open to them, serving the societies; there are millions in Europe but the emphasis is only on those who cause trouble.

But, tell me, when you are in need of some workers for dirty jobs, for example the rubbish, no Swiss wants to go collect the rubbish, then you bring in these people coming from a dictatorship, coming from poverty, coming from no health care, coming from no education, and used to being treated less than animals. When you bring them here – they are the poor people among the Muslims – if you concentrate on this category and show all the bad things about them and their behaviour, and then no one can defend or deny that it exists. It would be better to avoid that from the beginning and to educate these immigrants when they come here where there is democracy, there is law, there is no dictatorship, and you have to obey the law; and then they can do the dirty jobs that you want them to do.

But you bring them from a dictatorship, and you expect that they will be like you, without doing anything to help them change. The basic problem, the core of the problem is the dictatorship. For example, to come back to what you said about Sarkozy; he encourages Mubarak, he encourages the dictatorship, and he is the President of a democratic country!

Silvia Cattori : Does he encourage him because Mr. Hosni Mubarak is defending the interests of Israel and of the United States in the region? Mr. Sarkozy is today their best ally.

Youssef Nada : You are jumping to another subject.

Silvia Cattori : These subjects are linked together.

Youssef Nada : Not for me. This is dirty politics. If you forget the democratic principles, which you came to defend, and you support dictatorship, that’s not a clean agenda

But, for me, I am a special case.

Tell me, you know that the list at the United Nations concerning so-called “terrorists” includes 400 persons and entities. Do you think that the world, the democracies are threatened by 400 people? Which democracy is threatened? Is it so fragile that 400 criminals can make the democracy change to become a dictatorship? This Ben Laden, who is in a cave, in a mountain, and he can’t come out, you consider him to be a very big threat for democracy in the world? Inflating a small creature to make him a giant, and you are afraid of the giant!

Silvia Cattori : That’s the reason why it is so worrying, because these are lies which are preparing for another war, against Iran maybe, and your case is part of that long war which started in Iraq in 1991.

Youssef Nada : My case is completely different.

Silvia Cattori : So, it was just by mistake that you were charged?

Youssef Nada : No, it is intentional. But I have nothing to do with the other cases.

Silvia Cattori : But your case is a political case?

Youssef Nada : Yes. It is a political case, that’s true.

Let me tell you: all my life, since I was a child, even before joining the Muslim Brotherhood, I was open to my friends in a primary school where there were orthodox Copts, and Jews. I was open to them and still am. I share with them, our humanity, we are human. We differ; a Chinese, a Japanese, differs from me, but still he is a human; I share with him so many things. I differ from him on some points, one of them is religion; it doesn’t mean that he is my enemy.

Silvia Cattori : Why a person who is so smart and mild like you…

Youssef Nada : (laughing) When you know, let me know.

Silvia Cattori : You seem not to be angry with these people who made you suffer.

Youssef Nada : As I told you, if I lived for 29 years under a dictatorship, I am used for it . It is not new. For you, it is new, because you lived in a democratic country, but, for me, I am used to this, that the things will happen outside the legal area. I was treated outside the legal parameters.

Silvia Cattori : What is the most difficult for you?

Youssef Nada : My freedom. I was born a free man, and now I am not a free man. My rights have been taken from me.

Silvia Cattori : And now your phone is being monitored?

Youssef Nada : I don’t care about that, because I haven’t said anything wrong. But I am not a free man. If I am not a free man, then I have to expect everything or my freedom to be taken away. And that’s what happened. I am not a free man, and I am not happy without my freedom.

Silvia Cattori : What about your health: are you still preoccupied with health problems?

Youssef Nada : My hand is broken, and I have bleeding in my eyes and arteries in the neck, but I can’t go to the doctor. I can’t go to see specialized doctors, because they don’t exist in Campione. I need to go, but they refused to let me. I asked them several times for permission, but they refused. Even the Federal Court in Lausanne said to them: « this man’s rights were abused ». And, since Switzerland investigated the case and found nothing, the emigration office in Switzerland must not prohibit me, when it is allowed, to go to the doctor, they have to assist me at the United Nations Security Council and convince them. It is true that what happens to me is not justified, but Switzerland has to follow the Security Council rules. So I sent them a letter asking them for the authorization to go to the doctor outside Campione; they refused. Even after what the Court ruled. In a democratic country, one has to go to the Court; there is no other way.

Silvia Cattori : Do you think that you’ll be able to soon get these UN sanctions cancelled against you and finally see your name taken off this list which designates you as “assisting terrorists”?

Youssef Nada : I applied for it; they refused. They wrote that the designating country refused my request. I can’t go out of Campione. Italy is my country. I am Italian. Campione is an Italian enclave inside the Swiss territory.

Silvia Cattori : You feel as though you are in prison?

Youssef Nada : Yes, naturally. I am in a “Swiss Guantanamo”. The Court said that with this action, and because I am living in Campione, it means that I am under house arrest. I am on the so-called “assisting terrorists” list.

Silvia Cattori : Why do they still keep your name on that list?

Youssef Nada : I don’t know; if you know, tell me.

Silvia Cattori : What helps you to face this adversity?

Youssef Nada : My connection with who created me. He created me, and I believe I will go to Him.

Silvia Cattori : Is there anything one can do to help you get out of this situation ?

Youssef Nada : Nobody can do it, except justice. It is still in the hands of dirty politics. When they stormed my house, and offices, Mr. Roshacher made a declaration to “Swiss info”. That same day, on 7th November 2001, Bush came out on television and spoke about me. It was morning here when they raided my house and, in the evening, it was thus morning in Washington, Mr. Bush came on television and talked about us (our bank and its partners), and he said: « We are going to starve them».

Silvia Cattori : If these lies have been fabricated by certain Intelligence Services, and not by Mr. Olimpio, would that mean that he has been just a puppet in this story?

Youssef Nada : He and the others are tools, used for this case. As I said to you I forgot them; only when you mention them do I remember them.

Silvia Cattori : How long since you can’t leave Campione?

Youssef Nada : Actually, nobody said that I was forbidden to leave Campione, until I went to London on 10th November 2001, three days after they stormed my house and offices. I said to the Substitute of the Prosecutor of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Claude Nicati that I had to travel and that I was going to London. He said: “There is no restriction (he gave it to me by writing), but when I call you, you must come, otherwise I will arrest you”.

I went to London again in 2003. For 6 months continuously I was on Aljazeera, every week, on the screen, (and it was translated by the “Wall Street Journal” and by the “Washington Post”). I came from Aljazeera to the Hilton; my door was not opening and I went to see the concierge. He said to me “Just a moment Mr. Nada” and he kept me about five minutes, and he brought me another key saying “Sorry, sometimes the magnetic strip is not working”. I went up to the 5th floor. When the lift opened, 5 people stormed in and yelled: “Scotland Yard!” I said: “What is wrong?” He said: “Let us go to your room”. We went to the room and then he said: “Mr. Nada, bring your bag”. I said: “Sorry, I have to make my prayers at first”. He answered: “We don’t have time”. I said to him: “Make what you want but I am going to make my prayers; if you want to force me, force me, but I have to make my prayers before leaving”. Then I went to the bathroom; one of them wanted to come, I said “No, but I’ll leave the door open”. And then I made my prayers, and he said, “Bring your bag”. I replied, “I am the age of your grandfather, I can’t carry it. You carry it if you want or throw it through the window”. They carried it and brought it down.

Silvia Cattori : You are a very strong man!

Youssef Nada : I am burned already. What can they do more?

Silvia Cattori : Are you writing your story?

Youssef Nada : Yes, I am very busy. I have a lot of things to do. I have to follow the lawyers, because the lawyers can’t work alone; I must give them the documents. You know after closing the files, Swiss law allows you to go and see them and make copies. They gave me that permission. I went, with my lawyer, two times. The first time, we copied the indexes. It was 40 boxes, with 10 files in every box. And a second time, I took 2500 copies. I have all the documents. The lawyers come here, from time to time.

Silvia Cattori : When I think of all what you are suffering because of the attitude of my country, I feel ashamed…

Youssef Nada : No. Don’t be ashamed because, I tell you frankly: the respect that I have for this country, Switzerland, is more than for any other country. The mistakes they’ve made, it is another thing. But the respect that I received here, from the normal people, from the prosecutor, from the lawyers, from the parliamentarians, from the doctors, from some journalists, from the workers, engineers has been wonderful. I had the full respect for and from everyone. After they stormed the house, when I went down, in the street. Three persons stopped me saying « Viva Signor Nada ».

It is true that, in the media, there were a lot of bad things written. As I told you, the ignorant people are using people more ignorant than they are. And that’s what happened with Richard Labévière. When he went to Egypt, he used ignorant people, more ignorant than him, who gave him some information, and he put them in his film and in his book; all rubbish.

Can you imagine that he wrote that Youssef Nada assisted Hadj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Palestine, to flee Germany after meeting with Hitler, through Switzerland, then to go to Egypt and from Egypt to Palestine!? I was 13 years old when the Mufti fled Germany! Richard Labévière, when he wrote that, didn’t say that I was 13 years old at that time. When I wrote it, everything came out; even in Wikipedia, you can see it. And they also said that “Nada was working with the admiral SS Canaris in Egypt, during the war”. They forgot my birth date and that Canaris and the Mufti didn’t need a 13-year-old child to assist them!

Silvia Cattori : I can imagine how tough all that has been for you.

Youssef Nada : I was working in 27 countries just to find myself isolated here in one and a half square kilometers. But thanks to God, I have visitors from all over the world. I know my values that give me strength to stand up during the bad days as well as the good days. My head is up and will continue to be up until I die.

Silvia Cattori : Thank you for having given us this interview.

Silvia Cattori

« Marty slams “injustice” of UN blacklists », swissinfo.ch, April 25, 2007 .

[2] See :
«Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states», by Dick Marty, Rapporteur, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 12 June 2006

« Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report », by Dick Marty, Rapporteur, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 11 June 2007.

[3] See : « Official site of Youssef Nada ».

[4] See, notice about Mr. Olimpio, on the Official site of Youssef Nada.

Guido Olimpio, was the correspondent of the Corriere della sera. He stated on 9-10-2002in Milan criminal court before being indicted that he has contacts with the USA FBI, and that ‘ he gave an audience at the USA congress 1996 and that he testified in front of the security commission of the USA congress’. Presented as an « expert in international terrorism », Mr. Olimpio writes on the Middle East since the Eighties. From 1999 to the summer 2003, he was chief correspondant for the Corriere della Sera in Israël.

[5] Regarding Richard Labévière, author of the book « Dollars for Terror: The U.S. and Islam », see notice about him on the Official site of Youssef Nada.

[6] Sylvain Besson, journalist for the Swiss daily Le Temps. Author of the book : «La conquête de l’Occident», October 2005.

[7] It is the article « Hamas perde meta’ del tesoro », by Guido Olimpio, Corriere della Sera, 20 October 1997, which started the accusation of a financing of Hamas by the bank Al Taqwa of Youssef Nada.

Mr. Youssef Nada wrote on his Official site : « It took from 1997 until 2005 to obtain condemnation from the Milan criminal court against the writer of the article Guido Olimpio of “Corriere Della Sera”, and a civil case against him is in the pipe line. The lies of Guido Olimpio article in “Corriere Della Sera” were defused, and spread everywhere. ».

[8] Mr. Youssef Nada wrote on his Official site : « Among those who participated in defusing the lies, whether for envy or hate, whether knowingly or not, whether intentionally or not, whether hired to corner the Islamist activists, or motivated politically or financially, or for their own professional agenda, or misled, are the following names: Richard Labeviere, Roland Jacquard, Leo Sisti, Kevin Coogan, Paolo Fusi, Daniel Pipes Victor Comras, Sylvain Besson, and others whom will be named later ».

During those years where Israel and the United States were waging their war against Islam, experts in terrorism and theoriticians of Islamophobia have appeared, such as Daniel Pipes in the United States. See « Daniel Pipes, the expert of hate », Red Voltaire, 2 March 2006.

[9] Book published in Arabic. Under translation in English, French and German.

[10] The résolution 1267 of 1999, concerns Al-Qaïda and the Taliban. The Security Council of the United Nations has started the practice of sanctions against people (and not States) in October 1999, to fight the Taliban’s regime in Afghanistan .

[11] The résolution 1373 of the Security Council of the United Nations, adopted after the 11 September 2001, put the emphasis on the struggle against the financing of terrorism by introducing a general obligation to froze the assets and the economic resources of people et and entities involved in acts of terrorism. The Council of the European Union has established its own list after the 11 September 2001.

[12] See : « Swiss firm shuts down after terrorism probe », swissinfo.ch, 9 January 2002.

[13] See :« On se sert du terrorisme pour faire peur et pour restreindre les libertés fondamentales », Interview of Dick F. Marty, Horizons et débats, 28 January 2008.

[14] See :
« Official visit to Egypt – Statements made by M. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic, during his joint press briefing with Mr Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt (excerpts)», 30 December 2007.

« Interview given by M. Nicolas SARKOZY, President of the Republic, to the “Al-Ahram” Egyptian newspaper (excerpts)», 1st August 2007.

[15] See :
« Des cadres des Frères musulmans devant un tribunal militaire », El Watan, 17 June 2008.

« Egypt: Sentences against Muslim Brothers a perversion of justice », Press release, Amnesty International, 15 April 2008.

The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood

By: Robert S.Leiken&Steven Brooke, foreign affairs

friend or foe?

The Muslim Brotherhood is the worldsoldest,largest,and most influential Islamist organization. It is also the most controversial, condemned by both conventional opinion in the West and radical opinion in the Middle East. American commentators have called the Muslim Brothers radical Islamists and a vital component of the enemys assault force … deeply hostile to the United States. Al Qaedas Ayman al-Zawahiri sneers at them for lur[ing] thousands of young Muslim men into lines for elections … instead of into the lines of jihad. Jihadists loathe the Muslim Brotherhood (known in Arabic as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen) for rejecting global jihad and embracing democracy. These positions seem to make them moderates, the very thing the United States, short on allies in the Muslim world, seeks.

But the Ikhwan also assails U.S. foreign policy, especially Washingtons support for Israel, and questions linger about its actual commitment to the democratic process.

Over the past year, we have met with dozens of Brotherhood leaders and activists from Egypt, France, Jordan, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, and the United Kingdom. In long and sometimes heated discussions, we explored the Brotherhoods stance on democracy and jihad,Israel and Iraq, the United States, and what sort of society the group seeks to create.The Brotherhood is a collection of national groups with di?ering outlooks,and the various factions disagree about how best to advance its mission. But all reject global jihad while embracing elections and other features of democracy. There is also a current within the Brotherhood willing to engage with the United States. In the past several decades, this currentalong with the realities of practical politicshas pushed much of the Brotherhood toward moderation.

U.S.policymaking has been handicapped by Washingtons tendency to see the Muslim Brotherhoodand the Islamist movement as a wholeas a monolith. Policymakers should instead analyze each national and local group independently and seek out those that are open to engagement. In the anxious and often fruitless search for Muslim moderates,policymakers should recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood presents a notable opportunity.

big brothers

Since its founding in Egypt in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has sought to fuse religious revival with anti-imperialismresistance to foreign domination through the exaltation of Islam. At its begin- ning, the Brotherhood di?ered from earlier reformers by combining a profoundly Islamic ideology with modern grass-roots political activism.The Brotherhood pursued an Islamic society through tarbiyya (preaching and educating),concentrating first on changing the outlook of individuals,then families,and finallysocieties.Although the Brother- hoods origins were lower-middle class,it soon pushed Islamization into the local bourgeoisie and then clear to the palace. At the same time, it formed the armed Special Apparatus, replicating Young Egypts Greenshirts, the Wafds Blueshirts, nascent Nazi Brown- shirts, and other paramilitary organizations that were rife in the Middle East at the time.

In 1948, with civil strife looming, the Egyptian government dis- solved the Brotherhood. Later that year, a number of Brothers were implicated in the murder of the prime minister. Despite his public denunciation of the assassins, Hasan al-Banna, the Brotherhoods founder, was soon assassinated as wellleaving the factionalized Brothers squabbling over a successor.

In a gesture of conciliation to the palace (and also to prevent a single faction from dominating),the Brotherhood chose an outsider, the respected judge Hasan al-Hudaybi,to succeed Banna as its leader.

The Brotherhood seems to dissuade Muslims
from violence, channeling them
into politics and charity.

Hudaybis selection coincided with the military coup that toppled the Egyptian monarchy.The Free Officers Movement,led by Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser and his successor, Anwar al-Sadat, had worked closely with the Muslim Brothers, who were attracted by the soldiers nationalist stance and Islamic rhetoric. But the Free O?cers promise to Islamize the new constitution soon proved illusory. An embittered member of the Brotherhoods paramilitary Special Apparatus emptied a pistol at Nasser during a speech,prompt- ing the new regime to herd into Nassers squalid jails much of the organization,few members of which had any inkling of the hair-brained assassination adventure. Nasser, uninjured and unfazed, emerged as a stoic hero,the Brotherhoodsnotorious Special Apparatus as the gang that could not shoot straight.

In prison, the guards applied the kind of torture that would make Arab nationalism infamous, in Egypt as well as in Iraq and foreign affairs  Syria.The Brothers wounds throbbed with fateful questions: How could those who stood shoulder to shoulder with us against the British and the king now set their dogs on us? Can those tormenting devout Muslims really be Muslims themselves? Sayyid Qutb, then the Ikhwans most profound thinker,produced an answer that would echo into the twenty-first century: these were the acts of apostates, kafireen. Accordingly, the torturers and their regime were legitimate targets of jihad.

But from his own cell, Hudaybi disputed Qutbs conclusion. Only God, he believed, could judge faith. He rejected takfir (the act of declaring another Muslim an apostate), arguing that whoever judges that someone is no longer a Muslim … deviates from Islam and transgresses Gods will by judging another persons faith.  Within the Brotherhood, Hudaybis tolerant viewin line with Bannas founding visionprevailed, cementing the groups moderate vocation. But it appalled the takfiris, who streamed out of the Brotherhood.

Qutb, who breathed his last on Nassers gallows in 1966, went on to become the prophet and martyr of jihad. Qutb has influenced all those interested in jihad throughout the Islamic world, said a founding member of al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya,an erstwhile jihadist group known for its vicious campaign against foreign tourists in Egypt during the 1980s.The Brothers, he continued sadly, have abandoned the ideas of Sayyid Qutb. The Ikhwan followed the path of toleration and eventually came to find democracy compatible with its notion of slow Islamization.

An Islamic society, the idea goes, will naturally desire Islamic leaders and support them at the ballot box. The Ikhwan also repeatedly justified democracy on Islamic grounds by certifying that the umma [the Muslim community] is the source of sulta [political authority]. In pursuit of popular authority, the Brotherhood has formed electoral alliances with secularists, nationalists, and liberals.

Having lost the internal struggle for the Brotherhood,the radicals regrouped outside it, in sects that sought to topple regimes through- out the Muslim world. (Groups such as al Jihad would furnish the Egyptian core of al Qaeda.) These jihadists view the Brotherhoods embrace of democracy as blasphemy. Channeling Qutb, they argue that any government not ruling solely by sharia is apostate; democracy is not just a mistaken tactic but also an unforgivable sin, because it gives humans sovereignty over Allah.Osama bin Ladens lieutenant, Zawahiri, calls it the deification of the people. Abu Hamza al-Masri, the one-eyed radical cleric who presided over Londons notorious Finsbury Park mosque, considers democracy the call of self-divinity loud and clear, in which the rights of one group of people, who have put their idea to vote, have put their ideas and their decisions over the decisions of Allah.  Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (whom a recent West Point study found to be the most influential living jihadist thinker) inveighs, Democracy is obvious polytheism and thus just the kind of infidelity that Allah warns against, in His Book. Many analysts, meanwhile, sensibly question whether the Broth- erhoods adherence to democracy is merely tactical and transitory an opportunistic commitment to -,in the historian Bernard Lewiswords, one man, one vote, one time. Behind that warning is an extensive history of similar cadre organizations that promised democracy and then recanted once in power: the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, the Baath Party in Iraq and Syria, even the Nasserists. There is slim evidence that the Brotherhood has pondered what it would do with power.

Although it has been prodded by the electoral process to define its sloganIslam Is the SolutionIslamist governmental blueprints are scarce, even ones as sketchy as Lenins State and Revolution or Marxs Critique of the Gotha Program.

But in at least one respect, the Brotherhood di?ers from those admonitory precedents: its road to power is not revolutionary; it depends on winning hearts through gradual and peaceful Islamization.

Under this Fabian strategy, the Brotherhood seeks a compact with the powers that beoffering a channel for discontent while slowly expanding its influence. As one senior member told us, It would be unjust if the Brotherhood were to come to power before a majority of the society is prepared to support them.  Another Ikhwan leader told us that if the Brotherhood should rule unwisely and then face electoral defeat, we will have failed the people and the new party will have the right to come to power. We will not take away anyones rights. And in extensive conversations with the Muslim Brotherhoods disparate allies throughout the Middle East, we heard many expressions of confidence that it would honor democratic processes.

Internal debates

Middle Eastern jails, petrodollars, geopolitical rivalries, and the Muslim Awakening have given rise to a highly variegated Islamist movement. Unfortunately, nuance is lost in much of current Western discourse. Herding these di?erent beasts into a single conceptual corral labeled Salafi or Wahhabi ignores the di?erences and fault lines between themand has thwarted strategic thinking as a result.

When we asked Muslim Brothers in the Middle East and Europe whether they considered themselves Salafists (as they are frequently identified),they usually met our question with a Clintonian response: That depends on what your definition of Salafist is.If by Salafism we meant the modernist, renaissance Islam of Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh (turn-of-the-twentieth-century reformers who influenced Banna),then yes, they were Salafists.  Yet the ubiquitous Web site www.salafipublications.com, which is run by Salafists who believe that religion should never mix with politics and that existing rulers should be supported almost unconditionally, attacks Afghani and Abduh for being far away from the Salafi aqidah [creed]. (This is the view,for obvious reasons, of the Saudi religious establishment.) Such pietists, most of whom were trained in o?cial Saudi institutions, argue that the Brotherhoods participation in politics has converted them into the Bankrupt Brotherhood.  According to one, The Muslim Brothers have political goals and strategies, which induce them to make concessions to the West.  For us, the Salafists, the goal is purely religious. Other critics speculate that the Brotherhood helps radicalize Muslims in both the Middle East and Europe.  But in fact, it appears that the Ikhwan works to dissuade Muslims from violence, instead channeling them into politics and charitable activities. As a senior member of the Egyptian Brotherhoods Guidance Council told us in Cairo, If it wasnt for the Brotherhood, most of the youths of this era would have chosen the path of violence.  The Ikhwan has become a safety valve for moderate Islam.  The leader of the Jordanian Islamic Action Front, the Muslim Brotherhoods political party in Jordan, said that his group outdoes the government in discouraging jihad: Were better able to conduct an intellectual confrontation, and not a security confrontation, with the forces of extremism and fanaticism.  In London, Brotherhood leaders contrasted their approach to that of radical groups, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (ht), that seek to bring society to a boiling point. The Brotherhood claims success at sifting radicalism out of its ranks through organizational discipline and a painstaking educational program. (One Muslim Brother noted that the organizations motto could be Listen and Obey.) If a Muslim Brother wishes to commit violence, he generally leaves the organization to do so. That said, a number of militants have passed through the Brotherhood since its inception, and the path from the Brotherhood to jihad is not buried in sand. Defections have historically occurred when the organization has faced a conjunction of internal and external pressures, as when the takfiri element emerged under repression to produce the Egyptian jihadist movement.  Today, how- ever, Brothers who leave the organization are more likely to join the moderate center rather than to take up jihad. In the mid-1990s, internal dissent over registering as a political party occurred in the context of a government crackdown against a jihadist assault. These pressures resulted in an exodus of Brothers, many of whom formed the core of the liberal Islamist wasatiyya movement, including the moderate Hizb al-Wasat (Center Party).

One issue of enduring concern is Qutbs ambiguous legacy in the Brotherhood. Critiquing the martyr, as Qutb is known, requires a surgeons touch: he died in the service of the organization yet had strayed far from the founders vision. Even Hudaybis Preachers,Not Judges,an indirect but clear refutation of Qutb,never mentions him.

Today, the Brotherhood lionizes Qutb, admittedly a major figure whose views cannot be reduced to jihad. But it straddles a barbed fence in embracing Qutb while simultaneously arguing that his violent teachings were taken out of context. What lessons will younger members tempted to radical action draw?  While jihadists have been sorting out the finer points of international slaughter, the Ikhwan has hunkered down to pursue national goals.  In the November 2005 legislative elections in Egypt, independent candidates allied with the Ikhwan, which is officially banned but still tolerated, won a surprising 20 percent of the assemblyespecially impressive considering widespread government fraud and voter intimidation.  In the new parliament, the Brotherhood has coordinated its legislative efforts by forming an internal experts committee, nicknamed the parliamentary kitchen, that groups Brotherhood candidates according to their specialties. Instead of pursuing a divisive religious or cultural agenda, the Brotherhood has pushed for more affordable housing,  criticized the governments handling of the avian flu threat, and demanded account- ability for the recent series of bus, train, and ferry disasters.

These electoral advances and moderate, practical criticisms have made for an increasingly tense relationship with the Egyptian government. The Ikhwans electoral gains were followed, in May 2006, by their support for judicial reform and independence. President Hosni Mubaraks suspected preparations for handing over power to his son Gamal have led to further crackdowns on the opposition.

Such pressure exacerbates differences between various tendencies in the Egyptian Brotherhood.  Since the 1980s,middle-class professionals have pushed it in a more transparent and flexible direction.  Working within labor unions and professional organizations, these reformers have learned to forge coalitions with and provide services to their constituents. A leader of the reformist faction told us, Reform will only happen if Islamists work with other forces, including secularists and liberals.  This current finds a comfortable home within the Egyptian umbrella movement Kifaya (Enough!),which embraces the Brotherhood along with all manner of secularists, liberals, nationalists, and leftists. Kifaya was born in fervent opposition to the war in Iraq and now forms the battered core of Egyptian democratic opposition.

(It is ironic that a war waged in the name of promoting democracy has midwifed a democratic front in Egypt that is at odds with the United States and its war.) The Brotherhoods reformist wing contends with conservatives in high positions in the organization who bear the scars of repression and secrecy. The sharpest divisions have occurred over the issue of forming a political party, a key plank of the reformist agenda. Doing so, reformists argue, would serve the broader goals of the organization by giving the Brotherhood a platform to spread its message to an otherwise unavailable audience. The conservatives argue that a party should be an annex to the movement, devoted solely to politics.

Meanwhile, the Brotherhooods social movement would perform tasks outside of politics, such as charity, education, and health.

brotherly love or sibling rivalry?

Although the Egyptian branch remains the most influential Brotherhood group, offshoots have prospered throughout the Middle East and Europe. But there is no Islamist Comintern. The Brotherhoods dreaded International Organization is in fact a loose and feeble coalition scarcely able to convene its own members.

Indeed, the Brotherhoods international debility is a product of its local successes: national autonomy and adjustability to domestic conditions. The ideological affiliations that link Brotherhood organizations internationally are subject to the national priorities that shape each individually.

Suppressed throughout much of the Middle East, the Brother- hood spread across the Arab world and, via students and exiles, to Europe. In the early 1980s, the Egyptian Ikhwan sought to establish coordination among dozens of national offspring. But opposition was universal. Right next door, the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood powerhouse Hasan al-Turabi protested,  You cannot run the world from Cairo. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Kuwaiti Muslim Brothers objected to the acquiescence of the International Organization and withdrew, taking with them their plump wallets.

The U.S.-installed government in Iraq is another apple of discord.

While Muslim Brothers throughout the Middle East and Europe inveighed against the puppet Iraqi government, the Iraqi branch of the Muslim Brotherhood sat prominently in the Iraqi Parliament.

More recently, the alliance between the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and Abdel Halim Khaddam, the dissident former Syrian vice president, has been widely offensive to other Brotherhood branches.  The war in Lebanon last summer sharpened that divide, as the Syrian Brothers leaped to denounce President Bashar al-Assads meddling in Lebanon, while the rest of the Brotherhood rallied behind Hezbollah.

The national branches also have divergent views of the United States.

In Egypt and Jordan, even as it has considered a partnership with Washington against autocracy and terrorism, the Brotherhood, driven partly by electoral concerns, has harshly criticized the United States.

The Syrian Brotherhood, meanwhile, keenly supports the Bush administrations efforts to isolate the Assad regime; the kind of inflammatory anti-U.S. statements typical in Jordan and Egypt are rare in Syria.

Even on the central issue of Israel, each national organization calls its own tune. Every Muslim Brotherhood leader with whom we spoke claimed a willingness to follow suit should Hamas the Palestinian offshoot of the Brotherhoodrecognize the Jewish state. Such earnest professions may be grounded in the confident assumption of Hamas recalcitrance, but that position nonetheless stands in sharp relief to that of most jihadists. As Zawahiri expresses the jihadist view, No one has the right, whether Palestinian or not, to abandon a grain of soil from Palestine, which was a Muslim land, which was occupied by infidels. The Brotherhood does authorize jihad in countries and territories occupied by a foreign power. Like in Afghanistan under the Soviets, the Ikhwan views the struggles in Iraq and against Israel as defensive jihad against invaders, the Muslim functional equivalent of the Christian doctrine of just war. However, the Brotherhoods failure to stress the religious dimension incenses the jihadists, who mock the Brotherhood (including Hamas) for conducting jihad for the sake of territory rather than for the sake of Allah. Compare the statement from the Brotherhoods Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who argues that the enmity between us and the Jews is for the sake of land only, with this one from Zawahiri: God, glory to him, made the religion the cause of enmity and the cause of our fight. Muslim Brothers expressly deny their organization is anti-Semitic.

The current Egyptian general guide, Muhammad Mahdi Akef, argues that there is no conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jews, only between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Zionists (who, Akef told us,are not Jews).  Despite these denials, Brotherhood literature has expressed hatred for all Jews, not just Zionists.  The October 1980 childrens supplement to the Brotherhood newspaper AlDawa, for example, was designed to instruct young children on the enemies of your religion: Such are the Jews, my brother, Muslim lion cub, your enemies and the enemies of God. … Muslim lion cub, annihilate their existence.  But in a recent sermon at a Somali mosque in North London, Kamal El Helbawireportedly the most influential Muslim Brother in the United Kingdomdeclared that to be a good Muslim, faith was not enough. After faith there was neighborliness, and Helbawi related a story: The well-known scholar Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak had a Jewish neighbor.  The Jew wanted to sell his house.  The buyers asked him the price, and he said,  Two thousand.  They said to him, But your house is only worth one thousand.  He said, Yes, but I want one thousand for my house and another one thousand because of the good neighbour whom I am going to leave behind. After the service, we asked Helbawi whether recent news accounts of Muslim anti-Semitism in the English Midlands inspired his sermon,which publicly lauded a Jew for displaying a sacred Islamic virtue.Precisely, he replied.

Islamists have been accused of using deceptive double discourse: good moderate cop in English, bad fundamentalist cop in Arabic. A recent article in the journal Current Trends in Islamist Ideology found worrying discrepancies between the English and Arabic versions of certain articles on the official Muslim Brotherhood Web site.  But Helbawis sermon was delivered exclusively in English, with no restatement in Arabic.  This public, on-the-record display was far more persuasive than the usual Brotherhood spin separating anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism.

brothers abroad

In Europe, Brotherhood-led groups represent minorities in secular, democratic countries, and they understand that they will remain minorities for the foreseeable future. None actively pursues the objective of converting its compatriots to Islam. Instead, the emphasis falls on the rights of religious minorities. (Ironically, the European Brotherhood- inspired organizations take full advantage of Europes extreme official religious tolerance, inspired by the experience of Nazi anti-Semitism.) One example of the Brotherhoods European approach came after a Danish newspaper printed cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad last year. Although its transnational networks helped spread the word about the cartoons, all branches officially called for peaceful protest.

The Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, a grouping of the most important European Brotherhood-led bodies, condemned the European papers that printed the cartoons but hardly in stinging terms. Although it criticized the cartoons for hurt[ing] the feelings of Muslims, it devoted more space to calling for increased cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims.  The jihadists, in contrast, were offering blood money for the heads of the cartoonists and coordinating embassy burning days. In France, the sheer number of Muslims, alarming press and government reports about the Islamization of schools, radical garage mosques, clamorous Muslim protests against Israel, desecrations of Jewish graveyards, attacks on uncovered women, and several foiled terrorist plots have created the general impression, inside and outside the country, of a powerful rising Islamism. That is why a number of French and overseas observers rushed to label the stone-throwing, car-burning riots of 2005 in the largely Muslim slums the French intifada.  But in three and a half weeks of riots, Islamism failed to make its presence felt, still less to establish sharia in some obscure precinct, as reported by overwrought observers. Islamic radicals played no role in the triggering or spread of the violence, according to Frances domestic intelligence service, Renseignements Gnraux. On the contrary, they had every interest in a rapid return to calm in order to avoid being accused of anything.  The chief of the Paris branch of the Renseignements Gnraux told us that of the 3,000 rioters arrested in Paris last fall, there was not one known as belonging to an Islamist crowd, and we monitor them quite closely. In fact, when the Islamists emerged, it was to try to calm the autumn rioters, who often greeted these missionaries with hails of stones. The Brotherhood-linked organization Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (uoif) repudiated the riots in a fatwa. That fatwa was the culmination of a uoif strategy, forged 15 years earlier, to be perceived as a reliable partner of the French government.  The highest-ranking permanent official of the domestic surveillance agency told us that the uoif needs them, presumably to certify that the organization poses no danger.

Similarly, when French authorities banned the wearing of the hijab (or foulard), the position of the uoif was accommodation. The uoifs cautious stance on the law disappointed other European branches of the Brotherhood. They wished their French counterpart would be more aggressive and feared the French were setting a precedent of quiescence for other European Islamist groups of a more separatist persuasion.

As part of their collaborationist, low-profile strategy, the uoif has also maintained a prudent distance from such lightning rods as the Ikhwan figure Qaradawi, notorious in the West for justifying jihad in Israel and Iraq. Qaradawi has gone notably uninvited to recent uoif annual congresses. (For many Islamists, Qaradawi is no radical; as far as the jihadist ideologue Abu Basir al-Tartusi is concerned, Qaradawi deserves excommunication for his moderation.)  The uoif newspaper AlIttihad even treats the Palestinian question cautiously, supporting only charitable donations to refugees and presenting the Palestinians as victims rather than warriors.  The uoif does not participate in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and steers clear of the charged Arab-Israeli dispute.

It did not take part in the 2003 national demonstration against the war in Iraq, nor in the massive marches in the spring of 2006.

The organizations absence from both the riots and the marches, in the European country with the most Muslims, ought to soothe fears of an Islamist takeover of Europe.

The uoifs discretion differs sharply from its British counterpart, the Muslim Association of Britain (mab),which warmly welcomes the likes of Qaradawi. Although a quarter the size of the French Muslim population, the United Kingdoms Muslim population is more angry and assertive, and far more prone to terrorism. The uoif is more influential than the mab,but the smaller mab splashes in a much stormier sea. When the Muslim Brothers formed the mab in 1997, it was but one of many Muslim organizations in the United King- dom. Many were radical, rejecting the mild, if more fundamentalist, Deobandi and Barelwi traditions of their parents. Already in the field for a generation was the U.K. Islamic Mission, an offshoot of the Pakistani Islamist movement founded by Abul Ala Maududi. While the uoifs voice boomed in the small room of French Muslim activists, the mabs was a small voice trying to be heard in a vast auditorium in which the young were already pitching rotten eggs at their elders.

As the mab grew in prominence, it began to work with the British government.  This cooperation has been notable at Londons Finsbury Park mosque. That mosque gained notoriety thanks to its infamous erstwhile preacher.  Despite Masris arrest and expulsion from the mosque, his followers returned and quickly regained control.The police,hesitant to intervene directly in a house of worship, offered the mab control of the mosque in exchange for ridding it of radicals.  The mab gained a majority on the mosque board and gathered to retake the building.

Although Masris men tried to storm the mosque, the assembled mab supporters routed them.  Since then, Scotland Yard tells us that their reliable and effective partners have even deradicalized some of Masris former followers.

Open cooperation with the authorities has put the mab at odds with radical groups such as ht. The contest between the mab and ht roughly follows ethnic and generational lines: young Muslims of Pakistani descent are heavily represented in HT, whereas the older and fewer Muslims of Arab descent join the mab. A former HT member told us that his group dominates the British scene. He estimated that HT had some 8,500 members in the United Kingdom; the mab could boast only 1,000.The formally nonviolent ht itself is a full step away from the subjects of the British internal security chiefs recent assessment of jihadist activity: Some 200 groupings or networks, totaling over 1,600 identified individuals (and there will be many we dont know) who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas. In light of these numbers, no wonder mab officials told us that their group was a decade behind, and not gaining ground against, radical groups in the United Kingdom.

divide and engage Born as an anti-imperialist as much as an Islamic revivalist movement, the Brotherhood, like the United States, will follow its own star.  If individual branches resist the intercession of fellow organizations, how much less likely is it that they will embrace U.S. tutelage? But cooperation in specific areas of mutual interestsuch as opposition to al Qaeda, the encouragement of democracy, and resistance to expanding Iranian influencecould well be feasible.

One place to start would be with representatives of the Brotherhoods reformist wing, especially those already living in the West. The United States lost an opportunity to hear from one of these reformers last October when Helbawithe imam whom we heard deliver a sermon extolling a Jewwas forced o? a flight en route to a conference at New York University. This treatment of a figure known for his brave stand against radical Islam and for his public advocacy of dialogue with the United States constitutes yet another bewildering act by the Department of Homeland Security, which provided no explanation.  This London-based admirer of Shakespeare and the Bronts appears to be exactly the sort of interlocutor who could help bridge civilizations.  Instead, his public humiliation was a gift for the radicals, a bracing serving of we told you so on the subject of engaging Americans.

U.S. policy toward the Brotherhood is contested between those who view the Brotherhood and its affiliates as a vital component of the global jihadist network and those who argue that the Brotherhoods popular support in key Muslim countries and moderating potential require some degree of engagement.  The former view seems ascendant and explains an increase in U.S. efforts to isolate the Brotherhood such as preventing Helbawi and other reformist members of the Brotherhood from entering the United States or prohibiting U.S. government personnel from engaging with the Brotherhood.

But if the United States is to cope with the Muslim revival while advancing key national interests, policymakers must recognize its almost infinite variety of political (and apolitical) orientations.

When it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood, the beginning of wisdom lies in differentiating it from radical Islam and recognizing the significant differences between national Brotherhood organizations.  That diversity suggests Washington should adopt a case-by-case approach, letting the situation in each individual country determine when talking withor even working withthe Brotherhood is feasible and appropriate. In the United States often futile search for moderate Muslims with active community supportand at a moment when, isolated and suspect, Washington should be taking stock of its interests and capabilities in the Muslim worlda conversation with the Muslim Brotherhood makes strong strategic sense..

Robert S. Leiken is Director of the Immigration and National Security Programs at the Nixon Center and the author of the forthcoming Europes Angry Muslims. Steven Brooke is a Research Associate at the Nixon Center.

Muslim Brotherhood And Democracy in Egypt

The Islamic Trend in Egypt, the Arab community, and the Islamic world as a whole is an expanded one that works on large scales; it is now undoubtedly clear that it has a wide base of supporters.

The View of the Islamic Trend on the Future of Democracy in Egypt

The Islamic Trend in Egypt, the Arab community, and the Islamic world as a whole is an expanded one that works on large scales; it is now undoubtedly clear that it has a wide base of supporters. The Islamic Trend includes various attitudes; thus, its political approaches as well as its concepts towards democracy vary to a great deal whether this democracy is a political system, a political culture, or a practical mechanism. There is a large section of religious people who cannot be considered members in the Islamic Trend. That is because while they rarely vote in elections, their votes are distracted in various directions; this simply is how they are related to democracy. As for the organized Islamic movements that are indulged in the political arena, there are three main groups that may be also sub-divided:

Firstly: The Muslim Brotherhood and its ideology

The members of this movement embrace that class of Islamic-oriented democracy (i.e. that of the Islamic reference), and they are involved in the political arena in accordance with the codes of Islam that regulate all matters of life since the movement started in the early thirties of the last century. In addition, the Muslim Brotherhood works on developing its stances concerning democracy on all aspects: the political, the cultural, and the practical. In addition, it works on improving its relationship with other political entities. Its detailed point of view on the future of democracy in Egypt shall be dealt with later.

Secondly: The Salafi Movement and the Salafi School

The members of this group are divided into two broad categories: one of them rejects democracy, whereas the other not only accepts it, but also practices its mechanisms such as those in Kuwait. They have their own discretional opinions on the restrictions that shall be considered while practicing democracy. This school does not represent a noticeable attitude in Egypt; some of its members joined the parliamentary elections as individuals in a limited manner.

Thirdly: The Attitude of Violence

This group is completely against democracy, and it condemned the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the legislative elections. Some sects of this group reconsidered some of its thoughts concerning many issues; however, their published papers did not mention any change regarding their ideas about democracy.

It is worth mentioning that the intellectual and jurisprudential background of this group is largely influenced by the Salafi School. We may witness some new opinions in the coming days, especially since some Salafi sects that broke out from the circle of violence tried to establish political parties like Al-Islah and Ash-Shari`ah. Their agenda included admitting the political pluralism and the desire to participate in the parliamentary elections and other mechanisms of the democratic practice.

The upper hand in this group is still for Dr. Ayman Al-Zhawahri who announced his rejection for democracy after the enormous triumph that the Muslim Brotherhood achieved in Egypt. He called for one way to reach the reign: to oust the rulers by force. He further warned against falling into the American democratic trap. Therefore, we are before a sole view on the future of democracy: the view of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Democracy

Hasan Al-Banna set a rule for the Muslim Brotherhood about how to deal with any new idea. He described the Muslim Brotherhood saying, “The most precise word to describe the movement is “Islamic”. This word carries an extensive meaning, aside from that narrow one that is perceived by most people, since we believe that Islam is an integrated meaning that regulates all matters of life and sets an accurate rule for every issue. It is not helpless concerning the problems that face people, and the necessary systems that may lead to reforming them.”[1][1]

He then determines the scale to judge the other ideologies, “We judge the ideologies that prevailed in this age and caused intellectual tribulations according to the scale of our mission. What agrees with it is to be accepted, whereas what does not shall be rejected. We believe that our movement is general and integrated; as it includes all the reforming sides of all ideologies.”[1][2]

By this scale, he criticized the two major ideologies of that era: nationalism and patriotism; he accepted what corresponded with Islam, but rejected what deviated from its rules and principles. He supported that kind of nationalism that creates nostalgia, freedom, dignity, social unity, and social communication. On the other hand, he rejected that kind of feigned nationalism that encourages partiality as it only served the goals of the occupation, which made use of the divergence of the parties of that time allowing their cooperation only to spread mischief, and prohibiting their unity under the flag of serving their country. Ironically, this occupation added even more fuel to the fire between them, and only allowed their unity under its flag.

He concluded his speech about nationalism saying, “Here you can see that we support those who call for nationalism even if they were extremists in the points that serve our country and nation. It is clear that these edicts are nothing but a part of the teachings of our Islam which is the torch that enlightens our mission.”[1][3]

He applied the same criterion on patriotism; as he accepted national glory, but condemned aggression that is similar to the actions of Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic traditions). He illustrated that Islam respects all nations and cultures, especially the Arabs.

The modification he applied on nationalism and patriotism was that he put the whole philosophy in an Islamic frame, depending on the creed rather than geography; this is the idea of humanity, universality and the new globalization. He also illustrated that the ultimate goal of the Islamic nationalism is to guide the people to the illumination of Islam to create a happier world with the intention of seeking Allah”s Pleasure, and not for wealth, authority, or enslaving other nations through imposing custody.

Al-Banna”s attitude towards democracy:

The idea of democracy did not dominate over the other ideologies like nationalism and patriotism at that time. However, there were other comprehensive systems such as Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. On the other hand, other democratic regimes were attributed with parliaments and constitutions. Al-Banna had a vision concerning all these regimes; he described the democratic regimes to be merely colonial in his dissertation “The Islamic Perception for our Problems”, which was one of his last writings. In the same dissertation, he linked Communism and Socialism to the democratic regimes, “We also face now Communism and Socialism. The world now considers them but various meanings for democracy; it is a fact that cannot be denied by the democrats themselves.”

He further set all ideologies in one context, “Communism is serious at imposing its thoughts on the individuals; colonial democracy on the other hand tries to resist that trend. Then comes Socialism in the middle between both.”

Al-Banna then states, “We all believe in Islam as a religion and a governing system. We not only consider Egypt a Muslim country, but also the leading figure of all the Muslim countries. Article 149 of our constitution plainly declares that the official religion of the country is Islam, and that the official language is Arabic.”

Concerning the democratic practices, Al-Banna had a vision on the constitutional and the parliamentary affairs, “The Muslim Brotherhood believes that the main source of their edicts is the Qur”an and the Sunnah to which if the Muslims adhere, they shall never go astray. Moreover, most genres of knowledge that are related to Islam carry the seal of the age they were created in, and the people they were made up by. Therefore, the Muslim countries should resort to that kind of pure system. We should also approach Islam in the same manner as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), his companions, and the early Muslims did. We shall not restrict ourselves with any idea that is not set by Allah, for Islam is a religion for all humans.”[1][4]

According to the golden rule that encompasses both originality and modernity, Al-Banna managed to put an end to the debate around one of the thorniest issues of democracy, which is the constitutional and parliamentary ruling regime. He said, “Indeed, brothers, upon perceiving the principles of the constitutional regime, which are based on personal freedom, consulting the people, the responsibility of the ruler before his people, and illustrating the limits of each authority, it becomes crystal clear that all these principles emit from the creed of Islam. That is why the Muslim Brotherhood conceives this ruling system to be the closest to Islam, and they do not see any other system equal to it.”

As for the issue of parties, Al-Banna had a severe viewpoint that was related to the nature of the political parties at that time. The Muslim Brotherhood reconsidered this viewpoint in 1994 in a famous charter that admitted the plurality of parties.

As for the mechanisms of the democratic process, the Muslim Brotherhood was in the lead concerning applying democracy in their internal affairs. This is what their internal regulations and central law asserted. Each section had a general society to elect the chairman and the vice chairman of this section. Besides, the Muslim Brotherhood had a constituent assembly or a consultation council that represented all the sections; the decrees issued were based on the majority of votes. This is still the system of the Muslim Brotherhood until today to the extent that Dr. Waheed `Abd Al-Majeed described them to be the most democratic movement all-over the Arab world. In his dissertation “The Islamic Perception for Our Problems”, Hasan Al-Banna dealt with the mechanism of the general elections dividing the ruling system into three main principles:

·         The ruler”s responsibility

·         The unity of the nation

·         Respecting the will of the nation

He said plainly, “The modern constitutional system provided a means for reaching the authority through elections. Islam does not protest against this system as long as it leads to choosing those who are qualified to be in charge, and preventing those who are not from jumping into authority.” He then tackled the defects of the electoral system in Egypt and suggested some necessary reformations such as: the characteristics of the candidates, the programs of the organizations, reforming the parties in Egypt as well as the political organizations, setting limits for the electoral propaganda, correcting the lists of the voters, implementing severe penalties for forging and bribery, and resorting to the system of electing through lists rather than the individual system to avoid the pressure of the voters.

Al-Banna”s view on democracy can be summarized as:

1. He conceives Islam as an integrated system for his movement, and a scale on which he values any idea.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood is only obliged to follow the Qur”an and the Sunnah rather than any other ideology.

3. Accepting the other ideas initially, and analyzing them into their basic aspects.

4. Aspects of any idea have to be valued according to Islam; what corresponds to Islam is to be accepted, and should be given an Islamic conduct, while what does not shall be rejected.

5. Blending originality with modernity, and building the renaissance of the nation on Islamic bases.

6. Al-Banna accepted the written constitution, the parliamentary regime, and its basic rules; however, he had some comments. He also accepted receiving authority from among the people through periodical elections for which he suggested a form.

On the other hand, he condemned the concept of plurality of the parties due to the conflict between the parties at that time, their inability to attain the dreams of the Egyptians such as getting rid of the British occupation because of the personal disputes between the leaders, and their lack of comprehensible agendas. Moreover, he called them all to be united under one flag. In “The Islamic Perception for Our Problems”, he stated – after he had mentioned the opinion of the constitutional scholar Sayyid Sabri that clarified that most of the parties no longer had agendas to be defended by their supporters, the elections would not be based on choosing agendas since they all became alike, and the elections would be based on the individuals not on the parties, “Reformers attempted to create a unity, even if it was only temporary, to face the harsh tribulations the country passes by. They, however, failed and lost hope.

Temporary solutions can no longer be acceptable; there is no way but to dissolve all these parties, and to gather all the powers of our nation in one party to achieve our independence and to set the general reformation rules. Then, circumstances will allow people to take the way of regulation and renaissance in the shade of the unity created by Islam.”

Therefore, it can be concluded that Al-Banna accepted the idea of democracy and its common principle, but rejected that of the plurality of parties and offered key solutions for the general practices.
The Muslim Brotherhood After Al-Banna

The Muslim Brotherhood practiced their activities under what can be described as a liberal regime due to the existence of the occupation, the tyranny of the king, the weakness of the parties, the wide spread of illiteracy, and the interference of the British occupation, the king, and the minority parties to reduce the constitutional competencies.

Some limited mistakes occurred due to the variety of the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood especially when some members of the special wing committed some awful crimes such as the assassination of Judge Al-Khazindar and the Prime Minister An-Nuqrashi Pasha who dissolved the party by a military command and confiscated all its properties.

The biggest mistake was represented in losing hope in reforming the conditions peacefully and constitutionally; thus, they accepted the idea of the Liberal Officers to carry out a coup in order to make a comprehensive reformation, to participate in this process, and to defend it in an integrated manner. The goals of the Muslim Brotherhood to achieve a comprehensive reformation, especially in the political field, had not completed; therefore, it published a statement in the newspapers of Aug. 2, 1952, one week after the coup. Its main items were:

1. Demanding to try the previous king and his men for their corruption.

2. Abolishing the martial laws as well as all the oppressing laws that contradict with man”s freedom.

3. Ethical reformation and opposing all means of corruption and random imprisonment.

4. Constitutional reformation through demanding to set up an institution to form a new constitution that expresses the nation”s creed, needs, and hopes, and that represents a fence to protect its interests.

5. Social reformation through providing work opportunities, reviving the social solidarity, determining the relationship between the owner and the lessee, completing the labor laws, and reforming the employing systems.

6. Economic reformation.

7. Military education and training.

8. Caring about the police system that was affected by corruption and putting an end to the political police.

In spite of this clarity, the revolutionists disclaimed the political and constitutional elements, as they disregarded democracy putting it in the last of their six-goal list. They dissolved all the political parties at that time and did not establish an institution to form a new constitution. Then, the moment of confrontation came up in May 4, 1954, as the Chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood sent a letter to the Prime Minister, in which he demanded:

1. Restoring the parliamentary life.

2. Abolishing the martial laws.

3. Allowing all kinds of freedom, especially freedom of speech and releasing all the detained and those who were tried before the appellate courts.

Then, came the crucial confrontation – from Oct. 1954 until 1975 -, which was on the side of the revolutionists, during which many members of the Muslim Brotherhood were imprisoned for about twenty years.

In Brief:

The attitude of the Muslim Brotherhood supports democracy since its beginning although the movement completely adopts the Islamic bases, and tries hard to create an Islamic-oriented renaissance. The reason for this is the flexible view of the movement concerning two important issues:

1. The sources of the Islamic Jurisprudence and thought, and putting the Islamic heritage into consideration with an analytical sense.

2. The flexibility while looking into the productions of the human civilization as a whole, as some are to be accepted, while others are not.

The Situation From 1975 to 2005

Allowing a restricted plurality of the parties and depriving the Muslim Brotherhood from its natural right to form a political party in the frame of depriving some powers from this right was the feature of the political life of the second half of the 1970s until the assassination of President Sadat.

The concern of the Muslim Brotherhood during that era was to demand a comprehensive reformation, to defend their reputation against the media that continued to defame the movement for fifteen years, and to reconstruct their organization on the local and international sides.

However, we observe a reservation from the Muslim Brotherhood, as the article of Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali that called for accepting the plurality of the parties was prevented from being published in the late 1970s. Then, it was issued in Al-Da`wah magazine when Al-Ghazali refused to send more articles. This took place after the Muslim Brotherhood”s Chairman”s visit to his house to discuss the matter with him.

Many events took place after releasing the members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were arrested in the famous attack of September. A new phase started and affected the views of the Muslim brotherhood on democracy and its culture, mechanisms and means.

Among the most important experiences that took place in the 1980s were:

1. The active participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the parliamentary elections of 1984 and 1987.

2. The alliance of the Muslim Brotherhood with some licensed parties such as Al-Wafd (1984), and Al-`Amal and Al-Ahrar (1987).

3. The limited participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the parliament from 1984 to 1987, and its very active participation from 1987 to 1990.

4. The participation of the Muslim Brotherhood with some other parties in protesting against the ruling system since 1985 until 1997.

5. The extensive activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the important syndicates through administrating them, and its appreciation for the significance of participation without struggling with others, in spite of the weak performance at that time.

6. Exerting all possible efforts to establish a political party, and preparing more than one agenda for the parties.

7. Undergoing the severe restrictions imposed by the government upon its press, and preventing it from getting a license to establish a newspaper or a magazine after the death of the license bearer Salih `Ashmawi.

The accumulation of such experiences through two decades resulted in the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood reconsidered some of its basic principles related to democracy, and clarified its views concerning other issues.

The Muslim Brotherhood issued an important paper in April, 1994 about two important issues:

Firstly: The stance on the mutual consultation and political plurality in the Muslim society.

Secondly: The Muslim woman in the Muslim society.

Among the most important elements declared by the Muslim Brotherhood in this paper was admitting and emphasizing what was declared by the movement in its early stages such as:

-The comprehensive approval of the constitutional and parliamentary regime.

-Emphasizing the fact that the nation is the source of all powers.

-Stressing the importance of the impartial elections, as a peaceful means to rotate power.

The Muslim Brotherhood also proclaimed its respect for the plurality of parties in the political field in the frame of the constitution and law, which determines the essential fundamentals of the community. The movement asserted the importance of limiting the presidential terms of office to two terms under the monitoring of the state”s constitutional authorities.

It stressed the importance of the independence of the judicial authority. It also illustrated that only the independent, inviolable judicial authorities are to settle the disputes of the parties without any interference from the executive authority concerning establishing, monitoring, banning or even restricting the parties.

The complete equality between men and women in the political and civil freedoms with no violation to the Islamic Shari`ah. Women have the full right to receive an education, to work, to occupy public positions, to vote, and to be candidates in the parliamentary elections and all other constitutional institutions.

The Muslim Brotherhood also clarified its attitude towards the coexistence with the Christians. This attitude further developed to plainly declare that the relationship between the residents of the same country is based on the concept of citizenship regardless of their religion, races, or ideology. This citizenship means complete equality in both rights and responsibilities before the law of the land with no violation to the rights of the minorities concerning their personal affairs.

Afterwards, the Muslim Brotherhood passed by five hard years, during which twenty thousand members were imprisoned, 125 leaders were tried before martial courts, and three of them faced martyrdom: one under torture, and two due to the bad health conditions in the jail.

Afterwards, coordination among the political powers was brought to a standstill after a clear declaration of all parties in 1997 in a famous document about a detailed course for constitutional and political reformation. This took place after the failure to declare a national charter in 1995 due to the imprisonment of countless members of the Muslim Brotherhood, mutual doubts amongst the parties, and the fact that the ruling party managed to ally with several parties against the movement.

After the parliamentary elections of 2000, the Muslim Brotherhood came back to the political arena when seventeen members won seats in the parliament. In addition, in the elections of the lawyers” syndicate in 2001, the Muslim Brotherhood won the majority of votes.

After the death of Chairman Muhammad Ma”moun Al-Hudaibi, Mr. Muhammad Mahdi `Akef took over the responsibilities of the Chairmanship.

In an international press conference in the Egyptian Press Union ” syndicate, the Chairman proposed an initiative for reformation in March 3, 2004. Among the most important bases set by the Chairman were:

Firstly: The Muslim Brotherhood is against all forms of foreign interference and domination.

Secondly: The comprehensive reformation is an Islamic and national goal. The nation itself is responsible for adopting the initiative to make the reformation that aim at achieving free and good life, comprehensive renaissance, freedom, equality and consultation.

Thirdly: The starting point should be the political reformation that serves all the aspects of life that suffers from a quick deterioration in Egypt and the Islamic and Arab world.

Fourthly: Carrying out this reformation cannot be entitled to one authority or government; this is a responsibility that all members of society shall carry. The general, national reconciliation that leads to the cooperation of all parties and authorities is an obligation to firmly face all the schemes that aim at violating the area, and to solve our internal problems.

Now, the Muslim Brotherhood sees that there are many actions that should be taken to reinforce democracy:

1. Abolishing the emergency law immediately, and releasing all the political prisoners.

2. Allowing all practices of freedoms, especially the freedom of speech and the freedom of forming parties.

3. Impartial elections that do not suffer from the governmental interference.

4. Giving the upper hand to the independent judicial authorities, and passing a law that asserts their independence.

5. Reconsidering the constitution to cure its defects in an immediate manner, and ratifying a new constitution after the political reformation.

Allah is the aim of our intention, and He guides to the right path

——————————————————————————–

[1][1] The Message of Our Mission.

[1][2] The Message of Our Mission.

[1][3] The Message of Our Mission.

[4]The dissertation of the Fifth Conference.

The Role of Muslim Women in an Islamic Society

The Muslim Brotherhood. This translation of the official document is copyrighted. You may copy and distribute it freely for private use but it may not be published under another name or mass-produced without permission. To obtain permission, please send e-mail to mail.mb@prelude.co.uk
The Role of Muslim Women in an Islamic Society

The Role of Muslim Women in an Islamic Society and the stand of the Muslim Brotherhood regarding Womens’ rights to vote, be elected, occupy public and governmental posts, and work in general

INTRODUCTION

The Status of Women as Defined by Islam

The woman is a mother and it is said that “Paradise lies under her feet” (reported by Al Tabarani). In an authentic hadith the Prophet (peace be upon him)(SAAS) was asked by a man: ’Who is the one most worthy of my care?’. The Prophet replied: ’Your mother’. The man asked: ’Then whom?’. He replied: ’Your mother’. The man further asked: ’Then whom?’. He replied: ’Your mother’. The man asked: ’Then whom?’. And in this fourth time the Prophet replied: ’Then your father.’ This shows that Allah has placed the care of the mother as a primary responsibility of her sons.

Allah, exalted be He, says: {Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him and that you be kind to parents. When one or both of them attains old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor repel them but address them in terms of honour.} (Surat Al-Isra’ (17), ayah 23).

A woman is also a daughter and sister and like their male brothers, are born of the same lineage and from the same womb: {He bestows female (offspring) upon whom He wills, and bestows male (offspring) upon whom Him wills.} (Surat Al-Shura (42), ayah 49). The Prophet (SAAS) says: ’Women are the (equal) sisters of men’.

A woman is also a wife who is a source of comfort for her husband as he is to her: {And among His signs is this, that He created wives from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts)} (Surat Al-Rum (30), ayah 21). Allah also said: {They are like a garment to you and you are like a garment to them} (Surat Al-Baqara (2), ayah 187)

Women make up half of society and they are responsible for the nurturing, guidance and reformation of the subsequent generations of men and women. It is the female who imbues principles and faith into the souls of the nation.

Allah, exalted be He, created Adam from clay and Eve from Adam, and mankind came from both of them: {O mankind! Fear your Guardian Lord, who created you from a single person, created out of it, his mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;} (Surat Al-Nisa (4), ayah 1). {It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her (in love).}(Surat Al-A’raf (7), ayah 189).

There is no direct or indirect text in the Islamic Law (Shari’a) that even remotely suggests that women are inherently evil or impure as found in some distorted creeds that attribute lies to God. In fact, the Prophet (SAAS) said in an authentic hadith that ’A believer is never impure’.

People are differentiated in Islam according to their faith, God-consciousness and good conduct. Allah, exalted be He, says: {O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most God-fearing} (Surat AI-Hujurat (49), ayah 13). He also says: {And their Lord has accepted of them, and answered them: ’Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: you are members, one of another’,} (Surat Al-Imran (3), ayah 195). {Whoever works righteousness, whether male or female, and has faith, verily, to him will We give a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions.} (Surat Al-Nahl (16), ayah 97).

There is nothing in the Quran or the Sunnah (Prophet’s tradition) to support the allegations made by the distorted creeds that have attributed lies to Allah by claiming that it was Eve who seduced Adam into eating from the tree. The Quran categorically addresses the Divine command to both Adam and Eve: {O, Adam dwell you and your wife in the Garden, and eat thereof as you both wish: but approach not this tree, lest you become of the unjust. Then Satan whispered suggestions to them, in order to uncover that which was hidden from them (before); he said: ’Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest you should become angels or such beings as live for ever.’ And he (Satan) swore to them both, (saying) that he was their sincere advisor.} (Surat Al-Araf (7), ayah 19-21). Both repented together: {They said: ’Our Lord, we have wronged our own souls: If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost.’} (Surat Al-Araf (7), ayah 23). Also {Then did Satan make them slip from the (Garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been.} (Surat Al-Baqarah (2), ayah 36).

Thus, the Quran and the authentic traditions have refuted all false claims and superstitions that may arise concerning women and their purity.

A woman’s responsibility in faith is exactly the same as that of a man. She is accountable for her belief in Allah and the Prophet (SAAS) even if her closest of kin, like her father, husband or brother disagrees with her in this. Allah, the All-Wise and All-Knowing gave an example of the infidels through two women and an example of the faithful also citing two women. {Allah sets forth an example for those who disbelieve, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot: they were under two of our righteous servants but they both betrayed their (husbands by rejecting their doctrine), so they (Noah and Lot) benefited them (their wives) not against Allah, and it was said: ’Enter the Fire along with those who enter!’ And Allah has set forth, as an example to those who believe the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: ’O My Lord! Build for me, in nearness to You, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong’; And Mary the descendant of ’Imran, who guarded her chastity and We breathed into (her body) of Our Spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of his Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants).} (Surat Al-Tahrim (66), ayah 10-12).

The Muslim woman, like the Muslim man is called upon to believe in Allah, the Day of Judgement, the Book, the Angels, and the Prophets, etc. She is also asked to perform prayers, pay out the Zakat duty, fast in the month of Ramadan and perform Pilgrimage to the Holy Places if she can do so. She must also call for the good and forbid evil in addition to being responsible for the well-being of the Muslim community. {The believers, men and women, are guardians, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil,} (Surat Tawbah (9), ayah 71); {O you who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine them. Allah is more knowledgeable of their faith. If you find them to be believers, do not return them to the infidels} (Surat Al-Mumtahina (60), ayah 10). {O Prophet, when believing women come to you to give you the pledge that they will not associate anything in worship with Allah, that they will not steal, they will not commit adultery (or fornication), that they will not kill their children, that they will not utter slander intentionally forging falsehood, and that they will not disobey you in anything that is virtuous then accept their allegiance and ask Allah to forgive them,} (Surat Al-Mumtahina (60), ayah 12).

A woman also has to study the Islamic teachings for her own personal guidance the same as the male. She is responsible for conveying and communicating Islam. {Ask the knowledgeable people if you do not know.} (Surat Al-Anbia’ (21), ayah 7) {of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may get instructions in (Islamic) religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware of evil.} (Surat Tawbah (9), ayah 122).

The hudood (punishments) that are prescribed in the Shari’a are the same for men and women; the female thief is punished the same as the male thief, the adulteress is punished like the adulterer, the female wine-drinker is punished like the male wine-drinker, and the female who wages war on Allah and the Prophet is punished like the male who does so.

In qisas (retribution), the woman’s soul is equal to that of the man. The murderess is like the murderer and the murdered woman is like the murdered man. Qisas is exacted from a man if he kills a woman exactly and as equally as when he kills a man. Blood money rules do not discriminate between male and female.
The Role of Muslim Women in an Islamic Society

The Role of Muslim Women in an Islamic Society and the stand of the Muslim Brotherhood regarding Womens’ rights to vote, be elected, occupy public and governmental posts, and work in general

(CONTINUATION) It has been shown throughout the history of Islam that women took part in the First and Second Ba’yat al-Aqabah (pledges of allegiance). Furthermore, it was Khadija, the wife of the Prophet Mohamed (SAAS) who was the first to believe in, support and comfort our Prophet. It was Somayya who was among the first to be martyred upholding Islam. Al-Bukhari and Ahmed (reporters of the traditions of the Prophet Mohamed) cited Al-Rabiyya’ the daughter of Mu’awadh as saying: ’We used to participate in the battles with the Prophet of Allah. We gave water to the fighters, served them, and returned the dead and wounded to Medina.’

Also Muslim, Ibn Majah and Ahmed (in their narrations) said that Umm Ateyya, the Ansari , said: ’I accompanied the Messenger of Allah (SAAS) seven times, guarding the camp, making the food, treating the wounded and caring for the sick’.

In his Sahih, Muslim reported Umm Sulaim, the wife of Abi Talha, as saying that she carried a dagger on the day of the battle, of Hunain. When the Prophet (SAAS) asked her about it she said, ’I carry it so that I can defend myself against the enemies.’ The Messenger (SAAS) did not forbid this. Nusaibah, the daughter of Ka’b, fought in the wars of riddah (apostasy) at the time of the caliphate of Abu Bakr and she suffered many wounds caused by stabs and strikes.

A marriage is not valid in the Shari’ah of Allah without the approval, acceptance and consent of the woman and it is forbidden by the Shari’a that she be forced to marry someone that she does not accept.

The woman has full financial status that is no less than that of the man. She has the right, in the same way that a man does, to possess all types of wealth whether it be in the form of assets, real estate or cash. She has the right to use her wealth in any manner she wishes to as long as it is approved by the Shari’a. So she can buy, sell, trade, barter, provide grants and loans, incur loans, exchange assets etc. All these actions do not require the consent of any male whether this be her father, husband, or brother. In his sahih, Al-Bukhari titles one chapter: “A woman is permitted to free slaves and give gifts to someone other than her husband, unless she is mentally deranged.” In this he reported that Umm al-Muminin, the wife of the Messenger of Allah (SAAS), Maimunah bint Al-Harith freed a girl born as her slave without asking for the Prophet’s (SAAS) permission. When she mentioned this to him he said: ’If you had given her to your maternal uncle as a gift, your reward (with Allah) would have been greater.’

In one saying, the Messenger (SAAS) said that women are less (than men) in mind, deen and fortune, however he has explained this saying in a manner that is consistent with the texts cited concerning the rights, dignity and honour of women.

The lesser degree in deen does not mean a lesser degree of Iman (Belief) or that she is less human, in that she cannot rise to the highest ranks. This only means that Allah Himself has exempted her from certain forms of ritual worship at certain times, such as prayers and fasting during her ha’id (menstruation periods) and during her nifaas (bleeding time after delivery). The lesser fortune only means that in some cases of inheritance a woman’s share is less than that of a man’s. The Messenger (SAAS) did not generalise this to other rights or to anything indicating a lesser status. The lesser mind is concerning the status of a woman’s testimony in certain matters like debts and sale contracts, and in hudood (punishments). It does not imply anything other than this and is not generalised to degrade women into being inferior to men.

Indeed, in this regard, it should be pointed out that there are certain matters which only accept the testimony of a woman and not that of a man. Furthermore, women are unanimously accepted as narrators of ahadith (the sayings of the Prophet Mohamed), and this means that their testimony in narrating ahadith is treated like that of a man. In addition to this a woman is responsible towards her duties to her faith and she has full independence in her right to possess, and in her right to make contracts. If she was supposed to have a lesser mind, the contracts and other dealings would have required the assistance of a male.

The Quran addresses everyone, men and women, equally: {The Muslim men and Muslim women, the believing men and believing women, the worshipping men and worshipping women, the truthful men and truthful women, the pious men and pious women, the alms-giving men and the alms-giving women, the fasting men and fasting women, the men who are chaste and the women who are chaste, the men who remember Allah much and the women who do likewise, Allah has prepared a forgiveness and a great reward for all.} (Surat Al-Ahzab (33), ayah 35). Allah also says: {It is not for a believing man or woman, when Allah and His messenger have decreed a matter, that they should have any option in their decision.} (Surat Al-Ahzab (33), ayah 36) and {Say to the believers to lower off their gaze and be chaste for this is more pure for them and God knows what they do. Say to the believing women to lower off their gaze and be chaste.} (Surat Al-Nour (24), ayah 30).

As for the Qawwaamah (directing role) that men have over women as mentioned in Allah’s saying {men are the protectors and maintainers of women} (Surat Al-Nisa’ (4), ayah 34), this should not be understood as an absolute and general attitude in all things and for all men over all women. The above verse goes on to an explanation of the matter. {For what Allah has favoured some of them over others and for the money they spend.} This determines that a directing role is confined to the family alone and to matters only concerning the husband and wife relationship. As was said earlier the husband has no such directing role over the financial assets of his wife. All her decisions concerning her own property are valid and the husband can not nullify any of them. None of these decisions require the husband’s permission.

This Qawwaamah is merely a matter of leadership and directing in exchange for duties that should be performed. For it is the husband who pays the dowry in marriage, it is he who provides the house, its furniture, and all its needs and it is he who provides for the wife and children. He cannot force his wife to pay for any of these expenses even if she is wealthy. In most cases, the husband is older and it is the husband who is usually the breadwinner of the family and mixes more, with a wider range of people. Every type of group including the family must have a leader to guide it within the limits of what Allah has ordained for there can be no obedience for a human being in a matter involving disobedience to the Creator. It is the husband who is qualified for that leadership.

This role is not one of repression, hegemony, or tyranny but one of kindness, love and gentleness. It directs to the right path in wisdom and benevolence. It is fundamentally based on consultations, as the Quran speaks of the Muslims as {having their affairs in consultation among them.} (Surat Al-Shura (42), ayah 38); this being a general injunction. There is also a specific order in Quran for consultations in the affairs of marriage: {Should they (husband and wife) wish to separate from each other in agreement and upon consultation then they can do so blame lessly.} (Surat Al-Baqara (2),ayah 232). Similarly, in divorce: {And it is not lawful for you (men) to take back (from your wives) any of your gifts which you have given them, except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah (e.g. to deal with each other on a fair basis). Then if you fear that they would not be able to keep the limits ordained by Allah, then there is no sin on either of them if she gives something for her freedom} (Surat Al-Baqara (2), ayah 229). Add to this Allah’s saying: {Live with them (wives) in honourably (kindness). If you hate them, it may be that you hate a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of Good.} (Surat Al-Nisa’ (4), ayah 19). Other texts in the Shari’a indicate in a clear manner that marital life is based on comfort, gentleness and love and they categorically set out the meaning of Qawwaamah and its limits. Qawwaamah does not mean that women are lower or that they have less rights, Qawwaamah means, as Allah has indicated, that men are responsible for what they spend.

The general rule, therefore, is equality between men and women. The exceptions are from Allah, the All-Knowing and All-Aware because it is He who knows His creation best and the exceptions are in those specific characteristics that distinguish the female from the male. These differences are due to the separate functions that have been accorded to the male and the female. It is because of these complimentary and necessary distinctions that a man becomes attracted to a woman and a woman becomes attracted to a man and a marriage can be a happy, constructive and a healthy one.

The woman’s nature as the mother means that there are certain virtues which Allah has made specific to her such as the protection of her honour and the honour of her offspring. For example, religious texts ordained that the woman’s body, except for the face and the hands, should be covered in front of all except those who are a mahram (those she is forbidden to marry). And that a woman should not sit in private with a man who is not mahram.

Furthermore, the female has a greater sense of modesty and sensitivity. Hence, though she should demand her rights and practise them accordingly, this practice should be such that her modesty, dignity, virtue and sanctity be preserved.
The Role of Muslim Women in an Islamic Society

The Role of Muslim Women in an Islamic Society and the stand of the Muslim Brotherhood regarding Womens’ rights to vote, be elected, occupy public and governmental posts, and work in general

(CONTINUATION) We must not forget that the woman has a noble and significant task entrusted to her by Allah Almighty, child-bearing and motherhood. A man cannot undertake this most noble of tasks, which is being denigrated today by some; furthermore the human race itself would disappear in the absence of this process. Moreover, it is the mother that suckles the baby with her milk, giving out of care, nurturing the child, the effects of which remain with him throughout his life. The woman is also the lord of the house and it is her task to care for the family and prepare the home as a place of comfort; her role is a huge responsibility and noble mission that must not be in any way neglected or underestimated.

These characteristics, duties and rights which have been allocated to women by Allah are in balance with the duties she has towards her husband and her children. These duties must be given precedence over other responsibilities and they are necessary for the stability of the family which is the basic cell of the society and the cause for its cohesion, strength, and efficiency. However, the husband has a right to permit his wife to work. This right is to be regulated by an agreement between the husband and the wife. Such rights should not be regulated by law and the authorities should not interfere with them except in some rare cases.

THE WOMAN’S RIGHT TO VOTE, BE ELECTED AND OCCUPY PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL POSTS.

We hope that we have been able to shed some light on the status of the Muslim woman in an Islamic society concerning her rights and duties. We now deal with the issue of the woman’s right to vote and be elected as a member to representative councils, or to assume public office or carry out professional work.

Firstly, women and the right of electing members of representative councils and similar bodies

We are of the view that there is nothing in Shari’a to prevent women from taking part in these matters. Allah says: {the men believers and the women believers are responsible for each other . They enjoin the good and forbid the evil } (Surat al-Tawbah’ (9), ayah 71) and His saying {Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good and forbidding all Evil. And it is they who are the successful.} (Surat Al-Imran (3), ayah 104). This verse includes a command that gives women the right to enjoin the good and forbid the evil and part of this is the right to vote for the representative council in the elections. Some Muslim countries stipulate that it is the absolute right of women to vote in the elections because these countries wish to demonstrate their “democratic basis”; the Muslim women should not avoid this opportunity because their reluctance to vote can often weaken the position of the Islamic candidates.

Secondly, women’s membership in representative councils and similar bodies

We are of the view that there is nothing in the Shari’a texts to prevent this either. The views we cited earlier concerning their right to vote applies to their right to be elected as well.

There are some views which are held by others which support the contrary, they say that: 1- Women lack the knowledge of practising public affairs. Hence, they can be easily misled. This argument is refuted by the fact that an ignorant woman is like an ignorant man. Not all women are ignorant and not all men are educated or experienced in public affairs. We are dealing with the basic right, not with the conditions that must be present in every candidate whether they be male or female. This is quite another issue. We call for the education and the enlightenment of both women and men, and the exertion of all possible efforts in this connection, this being an important objective and duty made binding by the Shari’a 2- It is argued that women undergo menstruation, child-bearing and labour -a fact which may hamper their performance in the council to which they are elected. But this can be refuted by saying that men also may be subject to misjudgement or illness which may impair their performance. Add to this, that membership in representative councils has certain conditions including a certain age range for the deputy of between thirty and forty years. In most cases, when a woman is around the age of forty, she will have completed her burdens of child-bearing, and would have attained to a phase of mental and psychological maturity, as well as emotional stability. It is unlikely that a person in the minimum age limit can gain a seat in the representative office because this requires long experience for many years in the exercise of public office. Statistics show that only a few members of representative bodies are in or near the minimum mandatory age. The majority are much older.

We are speaking about the right of standing for membership, we are not dealing with the qualifications necessary for conditions of membership for men and women. It is up to the voters to choose if they see that the female candidate is not in a condition or a state which enables her to perform her duties. It is supposed that they will not support her and that the body patronising her will be reluctant to go on doing so or to field her as candidate.

3- Immodesty and intermingling of the sexes are also cited as counter-arguments. We do not call for immodesty and free mixing of the sexes. For the woman is bound by the Shari’a to abide by the Islamic dress code whether she goes out to take part in elections or to attend the sessions of the council in which she is a member or for any other purpose. It is a duty to set aside election centres for women, which are already in effect in most Islamic countries. Women should be allocated special places in the representative councils so that there will be no fear of crowding or intermingling.

4- Travelling abroad by a female member, without company of a mahram, is similarly cited in opposition but it can be countered by realising that it is not necessary for her to travel without the company of a mahram. She need not be in a situation without secure company nor in any situation which is not within the boundaries of the Shari’ah.

Thirdly, Women’s holding of Public Office

The only public office which it is agreed upon that a woman cannot occupy is the presidency or head of state. As for judiciary office, the jurisprudents have differed over women’s holding of it. Some, like Al-Tabari and Ibn-Hazm, said this is permissible without any restrictions. The majority of jurispudents, however, have forbidden it completely. But there have been those who allowed it for certain types of legal matters and forbade it in others (like the Imam Abu Hanifa). As long as the matter is the subject of interpretation and consideration, it is possible to choose from these opinions in accordance with the fundamentals of the Shari’a and to achieve the interests of Muslims at large as governed by the Shari’a controls and also in accordance to the conditions and circumstances of society. As for other types of public office the woman can accept them as there is nothing in the Shari’a to prevent her from doing so. Also, there is nothing to prevent her from working in what is permissible since the public office is a type of work that the Shari’a allowed women to undertake. Women can work in professions becoming doctors, teachers, nurses, or such fields which she or the society may need.

A GENERAL REMARK

We, The Muslim Brotherhood, wish to draw attention to the need of distinguishing between a person’s having a right and the way, the conditions, and the appropriate circumstances for the use of that right. Thus, if today’s societies have different social circumstances and traditions it is acceptable that the exercise of these rights should be gradually introduced in order for the society to adjust to these circumstances. More importantly, such an exercise should not lead to the violation of ethical rules laid down by the Shari’a and made binding by it.

We completely reject the way that western society has almost completely stripped women of their morality and chastity. These ideals are built upon a philosophy which is in contradiction to the Shari’ah and its morals and values. It is important in our Islamic Society, that the Islamic principles, morals and values are upheld with the fullest conviction, honour and austerity, in obedience to Allah, exalted be He.

And all praise is due to Allah, in the beginning and the end. May the blessings of Allah be upon His Messenger and his companions and his family.

Brotherhood to Egypt: Don’t squeeze out moderates

Marwa Awad and Edmund Blair / Reuters

The new leader of the Muslim Brotherhood said on Tuesday government efforts to squeeze Egypt’s biggest opposition group out of politics would only spur on “deviant” and potentially violent Islamic movements.

Mohamed Badie, 66, told Reuters the group would campaign in this year’s parliamentary election, but a state crackdown would likely prevent a repeat of its success in 2005 when it secured a fifth of the seats.

The government of President Hosni Mubarak, whose predecessor was gunned down by Islamic militants, is wary of any group with Islamist leanings, including the Brotherhood which long ago renounced violence and insists it seeks peaceful reform.

Since 2005, the authorities have gradually pushed the officially banned Brotherhood out of mainstream politics and regularly rounded up its members. The Brotherhood secured its seats in parliament by fielding candidates as independents.

“The Muslim Brotherhood, which carries the banner of moderate Islam, must be given the chance to teach Egyptian society to benefit the nation and its people,” Badie, picked as the group’s new leader this month, said in an interview.

“When we were prevented from playing the role of spreading moderate Islam, thorns sprouted in Egypt’s soil and so did terrorism,” he said, adding he rejected “deviant and ‘takfiri’ ideology”, referring to groups that declared people infidels.

Analysts see no sign of a return to the 1990s when al-Gama’a al-Islamiya, a group spurned by the Brotherhood, took up arms in a bid to set up purist Islamic state in Egypt. But they say pushing the Brotherhood out of politics may leave a gap for militants to fill and could lead to sporadic violence.

Badie echoed those comments, saying Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party had monopolised decision-making.

“If the channels are blocked, then this room we live in will become full of gas … In a charged atmosphere, in a room full of gas, if you strike a match, the place will explode.”

PRESSURE

In 2005, the group secured an unprecedented 88 of parliament’s 454 seats, even after rights groups and observers said Brotherhood voters were often blocked from casting ballots. Other opposition groups secured just a handful of seats.

Badie said the Brotherhood should have secured as many as 135 seats at the time were it not for election abuses. But he added that, although the group would contest this year’s vote, state suppression made the outcome far from clear.

“If the pressure continues in this way, I doubt that we will reach that level (of seats in the 2010 election). But we will not surrender our right to participate in parliament,” he said.

This year’s parliamentary election will be followed in 2011 by a presidential poll. Mubarak, 81, in power for almost three decades, has not said whether he will seek another six-year term. Many Egyptians speculate he is grooming his son, Gamal.

Badie said the Brotherhood would not be fielding a candidate in the presidential race, an election where rules make it almost impossible for any independent candidate to run.

Badie also repeated that the Brotherhood would not oppose Gamal, 46, as a candidate provided he ran “like any other Egyptian” and that the vote was not stacked in his favour. He rejected the idea of Gamal “inheriting” power.

“We don’t mind who is ruling, we respect whoever comes forward to compete legitimately. We do not have a Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate,” he said.

Badie’s election was announced after an unusually public row in the Brotherhood between conservatives viewed as wary of stepping up political activities that have triggered state repression and those, mainly of a younger generation, seeking more political activism.

Badie, seen by analysts as a conservative, dismissed the idea of a rift in the group and said differences of opinion were “proof of vitality and there is absolutely no conflict of generations within the Brotherhood”.

Source

The Muslim Brotherhood in Europe

[scribd id=20917099 key=key-286gie3yni9q1xb8tpka]