Talk:Muslim Brotherhood

Disputes

Movement

Incorrect category: Although there are a lot of poltical party spin-offs, the MB is not a political party but a political (islamist) movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.M. (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Organization

Reference here is made to evidence from U.S. v. HLF. I can not find the document listed of the U.S. District Court website for the 2008 trail (http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judges/hlf2.html). This document, what ever its source may be pertains to the Holy Land Foundation and its structure not the structure of the Muslim Brotherhood. It should also be noted that the structure of the original Brotherhood founded in 1928 by al-Banna, the Modern Movement in Egypt and its many sister organizations around the world share common starting principles but seldom share the same fundamental structure or organization. Piperlamb (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent attempt to appease everyone?

The article currently says "Inconsistent with popular belief in the West, the Muslim Brotherhood normally does not pursue its goals through acts of terror. For the situations of military occupation, and its Palestinian branch, Hamas, it pursues a struggle against Israel, in which it has frequently used bombs and other methods that specifically target Israeli military and civilians".
Am I the only one getting confused reading this?

• is there an implicit statement made here that bombing Israeli civilians is not an act of terror?
• or has the Muslim Brotherhood distanced itself from Hamas in the process of legitimizing itself?
• or something else? Obviously something is false or missing here.

24.23.137.188 02:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is certain people here are living in denial about the terrorist nature of this organization. Thus, the words "normally does not pursue..." Can't we just call this organization for the bigoted terrorist organization that it is?68.164.3.130 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is Hamas is in war with Israel and both sides of the war can be considered as bigoted terrorist organisations that kill the civilians of other side. 188.3.210.111 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I added to the article paragraphs that included information so far lacking from it, i.e. historical links between Muslim Brotherhood and Nazism and between MB and terrorist groups. I've also added recent statements by MB current leader in a video cited which are relevant to show that the simple fact that the MB says that it has renounced violence does not guarantee that this is the case, as pointed out by other people on this Talk page. The video which I cited of an interview with an Egyptian TV station plus other statements from Mohammed Badie, current leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, show him saying things which contradict the declared tolerant, anti-violent position of the organization. I also explained, in my additions to the article, that some commentators highlight the fact that jihad (holy war to subjugate the world under Islam, as described abundantly in the Koran and Hadith - or lesser jihad if you prefer, greater jihad being the fight within oneself) does not need to be violent: jihadists can use the democratic process to establish an Islamic state, after which they will need democracy no longer; this is sometimes known as 'stealth jihad'. This is also relevant to the article on MB, because that article focuses exclusively on whether the MB is violent and terrorist or not, without considering another important (perhaps even more important) question: what its goals are, if they are democratic or totalitarian and supremacist, if non-Muslims and women would have equal rights under its rule, etc. This is extremely relevant in view of a document (mentioned elsewhere in this Talk page) found by the CIA and described on this Wikipedia page, that says: "The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions." Another crucial quotation is from the Muslim Brotherhood official website in English, which says: "The majority of scholars agreed that the highest office in the state cannot be run by a woman or non-Muslim." and which I also added. Far from having a strong bias against the Muslim Brotherhood, this article is totally biased in its favour. My additions have been removed in an edit by Thepizzadude, saying that "The introduction was greatly fleshed out by a mass of propaganda and malicious myths, all cited by links to right-wing/neoconservative sources. Also, much of the information was irrelevant to the Brotherhood". I have given abundant reasons supporting that the information is relevant. They are not myths, because I provided the sources. To say that thay are "right-wing/neoconservative" is nonsensical: one is the BBC, one is another page from Wikipedia, a third is from the Muslim Brotherhood's own official website, and for the others Thepizzadude has provided no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the sources quoted are not reliable and valid. The question of sources is not so simple and straightforward as some people seem to believe: Al-Jazeera is among the sources cited for this article on MB, and that is certainly not an impartial source; neither is, for that matter, the Muslim Brotherhood, which has all the interest in the world to be perceived as benign, peaceful and tolerant, almost a charitable organization, as it would indeed appear from this article. The MB website recently has undergone a certain refurbishment to remove bylaws which would have tarnished the image it wants to project as a moderate party dedicated to maintaining a modern, secular Egypt, but these bylaws can still be avavilable in the archived version of its website, for example this: "E – The need to work on establishing the Islamic State, which seeks to effectively implement the provisions of Islam and its teachings." Whatever one thinks on the matter, relevant, well-documented information should not be removed simply because it goes against one's pet likes or ideologies. Wikipedia is committed to describing facts as objectively as possible. This article on MB already contains many hyper-favourable comments; it should at least, for the sake of balance, not hide unpalatable truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElenaLeonardo (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist organization?

I GCarty removed [Category:Islamic terrorist organizations] without an explanation. Is it a terrorist organization or not?
--AI 17:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know this is over two years ago, but according to the State Department, it's not classified as a terrorist organization. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm Brokenwit 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC

It is not considered a terrorist organisation per se, but it does pursue a policy of anti-secularism in religious matters. It remains to be seen how Egypt fares once the MB is in power.124.120.118.68 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Biased and Misleading

This article suffers from a strong bias against the Muslim Brotherhood, and contains misleading statements.

The article should note that the Brotherhood's political positions have evolved considerably in the past few decades. It renounced violence in the 1970s, advocates free elections, majority rule, freedom of thought and expression, has declared its desire for dialogue with "parties opposed to violence, terrorism, and extremism", and has been participating with secular activists in the recent pro-democracy "kifaya" movement in Egypt. A Muslim Brotherhood statement reads:

The absence of democracy is one of the main reasons for the crisis here, in Egypt and the Middle East. The Muslim Brothers believe that the Western governments are one of the main reasons for the lack of democracy in the region because they are supporting dictatorships in the Arab and Islamic region in general, despite the fact that it has been proved that the absence of democracy and freedom is the reason for terrorism and violence.

As the International Crisis Group points out (in the same report):

Ever since its rapprochement with the Sadat regime, the Society has pursued a non-violent strategy of expanding its social and political presence through an approach that recalls that of European social democracy....

The specific measure the Society calls for are free and fair elections; the amendment of the laws on political parties and on professional syndicates; the right to demonstrate, hold meetings and publish newspapers; and, above all, lifting the Emergency Law in force since 1981.

Anwar_Sadat was not assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, but by another group, called Islamic Jihad. (It is also worth noting that this followed a period during which Sadat exercised massive, brutal repression against Islamists and students in Egypt.) In fact, the Brotherhood had good relations with Sadat, even after the Camp David agreement in 1979.

The article should mention that the Brotherhood is the most popular political organisation in Egypt, but remains illegal, because the Egyptian government knows very well that if the Brotherhood were allowed to participate in fair elections (which in any case do not exist in Egypt), it would probably win:

Many political scientists say that truly free elections might take the Brotherhood to victory.

Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing to look forward to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.3.130 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Even the state-run Al Ahram Weekly acknolwedges that the Brotherhood has more popular support than any other Egyptian opposition party:

"Except for the Muslim Brotherhood," said Bahieddin Hassan, who heads the Cairo Centre for Human Rights, "none of the existing political forces could be considered a threat to Mubarak's regime."

Brotherhood members are often arrested and imprisoned without trial in Egypt.

The Brotherhood are themselves rather modest about the broad popular support they enjoy:

Muslim Brotherhood member Abdel-Moneim Abul-Fotouh dismissed predictions that the choices were limited to the National Democratic Party (NDP) or the Muslim Brotherhood. "We cannot reduce all political forces on the scene to just the NDP or the Brotherhood. There are other forces at play. Let the democratic process and the ballot box be the alternative," Abul-Fotouh said. "We should not expropriate the public's right to choose their own rulers. Let the Islamists, the Nasserists and the liberals run for office, and show their respect for the will of the electorate." -- Beroul

* Beroul, you are quoting from the PR voice of the Muslim Brotherhood which states its desire for dialogue with "parties opposed to violence, terrorism, and extremism."
How credible is the Muslim Brotherhood when it's motto states: "Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
--AI 19:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, what is your source for that motto? Secondly, perhaps you don't know that the word "jihad" in Arabic refers to any effort made for the good of Islam; war is only one possible form of "jihad". "Dying in the way of Allah" could simply mean being a good Muslim throughout one's life until death, and isn't necessarily a reference to war. Even if military jihad was the intended meaning, you would have to put it in historical context. Many of Hassan Al-Banna's political views have been gradually abandoned by the Brotherhood over the years, and contradicted by its more recent commitments, but because of respect for their founder, the Brothers have been slow to acknowledge this contradiction officially. However, their actions over the past thirty years speak for themselves and have been consistent with their statements during this period: abjuring violent struggle, providing social and educational services to the poor and attempting to participate in the Egyptian political process (via several members of the Egyptian parliament who stand as independent candidates). Their steadfast non-violence is all the more remarkable given the Egyptian government's relentless campaign of arbitrary arrest and torture of Brotherhood members; unlike some other Egyptian opposition groups that became radicalised when subjected to similar repression, the Brotherhood has not sought vengeance against the government. This is undoubtedly a sign of political maturity. Nowadays, a charge more often levelled at the Muslim Brothers is that they're too timid, that they don't stand up to the regime enough. The slogan you're quoting, if indeed it is real and can be interpreted in the way you seem to think, reflects at most the organisation's distant past (perhaps especially its origins as a movement against British domination of Egypt, another point this Wikipedia article misses), not its present or recent past. Read the International Crisis Group's report for an in-depth examination of the reality of the Brotherhood. The Crisis Group is a staunchly pro-Western research organisation whose board reads like a Who's Who of powerful, centrist Western political figures; they can hardly be accused of lacking scepticism towards Islamic political groups. Or read François Burgat's excellent book on political Islam, based on nearly 20 years of research in the region. (Burgat, who is based in Yemen, is a political scientist at the CNRS, one of the most prestigious French public research institutes.) I'm not saying the Brotherhood are the most progressive organisation in the world; they're not. But they're not at all what this Wikipedia article makes them out to be. --Beroul 15:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

* I am doing my best to remain neutral. I could be a lot harsher on the Muslim Brotherhood based on exhaustive research by others. I did not write this article. If you look at the article history you can see what I and others have contributed. Source(s) can be found at the bottom of the spread. Your claims and references do not precisely correspond. Your citation of the International Crisis Group's report [1] contains no mention of the The Muslim Brotherhood but rather Islamism. The two are not the same. The "Brotherhood" does not fully renounce violence as you profess. Here is a more recent quote by a "Brotherhood" leader:
... "all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers, and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately. The mutilation of corpses is forbidden in Islam."--Sheikh Dr. Yousef Al-Qaradhawi at the Egyptian Journalists' Union in Cairo, August 2004
Please contribute to the article and site your sources.
--AI 22:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will edit the article. I don't see any sign of "exhaustive research" here. The references are very short on scholarly research. The Federation of American Scientists article is of very poor quality (it incorrectly states that the Brothers assassinated Sadat). As for Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, he is described here (in a scholarly article by a specialist on Al-Qaradhawi) as a "former member of the Muslim Brotherhood", not a current member, still less a "leader". Moreover, the Middle East Media Research Institute article is just about Al-Qaradhawi, and says nothing about the history or current activities of the Brotherhood. (The Middle East Media Research Institute also seems to be very biased against political Islam in general; its article contains highly inflammatory rhetoric, e.g. words such as "bloodthirsty", that have no place in serious scholarship.) In any case, the views of a single person, on a very specific subject, at a single point in time, can't be used to characterise the objectives, strategies and actions of a large, heterogeneous, international group that has existed for some eighty years. Instead, you need to look at the overall patterns of the group's activities over time. Gilles Kepel is indeed a distinguished expert, but his name is misspelt and the reference to his book gives no page numbers, so it's not clear whether that reference was added as an afterthought, or whether anything in this article was based on his book. Moreover, he has a particular take on Islamism that is not shared by some of his peers; a greater diversity of academic points of view is needed for an encyclopedia article. The other references are journalistic. It seems to me that an encyclopedia article, especially one on a controversial and complex topic such as this, should rely on serious scholarship, rather than on journalistic sources, which are likely to be highly biased and based on sloppy research. Overall, this Wikipedia article seems to be based mainly on hearsay.
More generally, I don't think this is a subject that can be adequately researched on the Internet; you need to use the standard academic texts on this subject, such as Richard P. Mitchell's The Society of the Muslim Brothers, as well as more recent academic work of a similar calibre.
The International Crisis Group's report does indeed contain a section on the Brotherhood (section IV, pp. 9-16); you seem to have read only the Executive Summary, not the full report (i.e. the PDF file that can be downloaded from the link given above). Please read the full report; it's not a complete picture, but it's a beginning, and a useful antidote to the inaccuracy of this Wikipedia article. --Beroul 17:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beroul, I agree with you that the Muslim Brotherhood article plausibly contains innacuracies because most of the exemplifications of the movement seem to be biased one way or another. Last year, when I began learning about the MB as a result of research into an insular topic, the picture I surveyed was eminently presumable yet slanderous to the organization. As I do not have adequate access to material on the subject and my target of research is not the MB, I am not an expert on the subject. I believe with your contribution, Wikipedia's article on the Muslim Brotherhood can be a source of information rather than propaganda.--AI 18:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your confidence; I'm going to try to research this properly. I'm not an expert on the Brotherhood either; most of what I know about them comes from more general reading on Middle Eastern history and Islamist movements. Also, my Arabic isn't yet good enough to handle primary sources. However, I have some time to spend on this at the moment and I have access to good scholarship in English and French. Starting from the bibliographies of more general texts that I trust, I've been to the library of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and borrowed a stack of books on the Brotherhood, and I've started going through them and making notes. Give me a few weeks to try to synthesise this material; if it takes longer than that, I'll make another note here to report on my progress. --Beroul 12:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this article is that it fails to explain that the MB is and was founded as an arab fascist organization. They are the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda and all Sunni based terrorist organizations in the world. Hassan al-Banna was best friends with Adolf Hitler! Sayyid Qutb hated America and everything it stood for. Watch BBC's The Power of Nightmares about him. These people are anti-American and anti-everything that is not Arab Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.148.89 (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

and they just (October 6, 2010) declared war on America (http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/10/muslim-brotherhood-declares-war-on.html) --Tcheh (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is Jihad Watch listed as an external link for this article? Jihad Watch is inflammatory and fear-mongering. It's like including a neo-nazi website in an article about Jewish culture! (I know, mentioning Hitler/Nazism is the signal that rational discussion has ended.) Derrick Chapman 19:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)

Turkey's AKP

Why is it not mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edixurged (talk • contribs) 08:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Second that - my understanding is they are linked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.240.149 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation for that assertion/understanding? Bensherman01 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They are not linked concerning origin, as far as I know, but are both islamically political or as some like to put it "islamistic" (thou that sounds a bit scary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziliakus (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

MB Primary Goals - no mention of caliphate

Hassan al-Banna never spelled out specific proposals for a Islamic Government. Concerning the restoration of the Caliphate Hassan stated,

“The Ikhwan believe that the Caliphate is the symbol of Muslim Unity, and the link between the Muslim peoples. The Caliphate is a religious office to which all Muslims should give considerable thought and importance … The Muslim Brotherhood gives top priority to the restoration of the Caliphate. At the same time they believe that this necessarily requires considerable preparation, and that the direct step to the restoration of the Caliphate must be proceeded by various stages. [First of all] there must be complete educational, social, and economic co-operation between all the Muslim peoples. [These steps should then be] followed by treaties, meetings, and conferences between the Muslim countries…”

This text derived from a conference lecture given by al-Banna upon the brotherhoods tenth anniversary, see Harris, Christina Phelps Nationalism and Revolution in Egypt: The Role of the Muslim Brotherhood. 1964, pg. 162

It seems al-Banna often walked a fine line between the competing interests of Islamism, Egyptian Nationalism, and Pan-Arabism mush the same way Nasser was forced to in order to garner political support from a wide cross section of Egyptians. I have no information at this time whether the Modern Egyptian Brotherhood or any of its many global derivations have a differing position of the subject of the Caliphate. Piperlamb (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In the source attributed to the goals of the MB, there is no mention of the "reinstatement of the caliphate and reunite the "dar el Islam"". On page 9 of the source it explicitly states - "The main goals are five. They are:" and proceeds to list said 5 goals and not 6; none of which include the caliphate. Please remove this or add an additional source. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.170.115 (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, and it's been a month since the request for an additional reference. Is that long enough to remove the caliphate bit? Bensherman01 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

[The political direction it has been taking lately has tended towards more moderate secular "Islamism" and so-called Islamic Democracy comparable to Christian Democrat movements in Europe, the Christian-right in the United States, and the Muslim oriented democratic parties of Turkey.]

I don't think any of these evangelical Christian movements (like the Christian right in the US) would feel like they have much in common ideologically with the Muslim Brotherhood. References? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.193.22 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

is "Muslim Brotherhood" a good translation?

I cannot read or translate Arabic. I was curious if "Muslim Brotherhood" is a literal translation, or if it inaccurate. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It is probably a good translation, they claim that the Quran is their law [2] According to the Quran, Muslims are descendants of Abraham, "their father" [3] and this is what makes them brothers. According to the same Quran, they have been chosen by Allah to govern the nations[4]. St.Trond (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The literal translation of "الإخوان المسلمون" can be either "the Muslim Brothers" or "the Muslim Brotherhood". nableezy - 19:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks Nableezy. St. Trond - I don't understand; you're predicting the translation of the name of the organization based on your interpretation of theology? guanxi (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased entries

Overall, this entry is not an objective report on the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, it facilitates a distorted view that whitewashes ongoing verbal incitement and acts of violence against non-Muslims, particularly against Jews and Israel.

Attempts to include facts that are not complimentary to the Muslim Brotherhood are removed under the color of rules that are rarely applied to pro-Muslim editors.

Wikipedia claims that it intends to present a balanced perspective. When it comes to matters dealing with Israel, this rarely happens. Instead, a great effort is made to prevent balanced reporting.

Wikipedia should find a way to allow facts and references to remain in place. At present, those who wish to distort the facts dominate the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCheck93 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

White Washed History

Why does this article white wash the early years of the Muslim Brotherhood? There are many public sources to document the fact that Amin Al-Husseini was visited by Adolf Eichman in 1937 and obtained funding from The Third Reich under Adolf Hitler in Germany. Mein Kampf was translated to My Jihad for dissemination in Muslim Brotherhood controlled areas. This needs to be included in the Founding section in order to have accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.183.164 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an ongoing controversy. Can you give us some citations? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Amin Al-Husseini involved with the MB? Is there some evidence to that effect?Jemiljan (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"jihad" is just the Arabic word for fight, struggle or battle. [5] --85.182.145.82 (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)