revelarts
02-11-2011, 08:28 AM
Muslim Brotherhood has been a long time boggie man and more than a few time well deserved. with all the Egyptian issues and general unrest. I'm trying to get a broader picture of what they're about.
A Calipith, a world wide Shria, freedom Muslim sytle?
they have a pretty dark past, with Nazi connections no less, and are a pretty ominous group in general but i wonder how cohesive their goals and members are these days.
From
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/10/don_t_fear_the_brotherhood
talking about Egyptian brotherhood group
....It's not only the regime's apologists who profess to fear the Muslim Brotherhood; I had no trouble finding secular Cairenes (Cairo) who took an equally dim view. The group's slogan is, after all, "Islam is the solution," and the appeal its political leaders make to the rank and file is long on religious orthodoxy. Still, I spent two weeks talking to members of the Brotherhood -- something the secular critics rarely do -- and though I did feel they were putting their best foot forward for a Western journalist, I was struck by their reluctance to impose their views on others and their commitment to democratic process. They had been drawn to the Brotherhood not only by piety but also by the group's reputation for social service and personal probity.
Many of these men were lawyers, doctors, or engineers. But I also spent several evenings with an electrician named Magdy Ashour, who had been elected to parliament from a dismal slum at the furthest edge of Cairo (he's now an independent, after being ousted from the Brotherhood in December). He was at pains to counter what he assumed were my preconceptions. "When people hear the name Muslim Brotherhood, they think of terrorism and suicide bombings," Ashour conceded. "We want to establish the perception of an Islamic group cooperating with other groups, concerned about human rights. We do not want to establish a country like Iran, which thinks that it is ruling with a divine mandate. We want a government based on civil law, with an Islamic source of lawmaking."
And just what is an "Islamic source of lawmaking?" Muhammad Habib, then the Muslim Brotherhood's deputy supreme guide -- its second-ranking official-- explained to me that, under such a system, parliament would seek the advice of religious scholars on issues touching upon religion, though such views could never be binding. A democratically elected parliament, he asserted, would still have the "absolute right" to pass a law the Brotherhood deemed "un-Islamic." And the proper redress for religious objections would be a formal appeal process in the constitutional court.
Maybe they were lying. But I didn't think so. More to the point, the Muslim Brotherhood's then 88-member caucus in the legislature studiously avoided religious issues and worked with secular opposition members on issues of democracy and human rights. They all lived together in a hotel, showed up for work every day, and invited outside experts for policy briefings. It was widely agreed that the Brothers took parliament far more seriously than members of the ruling party ever had. ...
Lay low and take over?
A real possibility.
A sure thing in many folks minds I'm sure.
Much like they socialist state promoters here, get in with democracy and slowly transform the country law by law into a their vision of what it should be. the care taker of the people.
A Calipith, a world wide Shria, freedom Muslim sytle?
they have a pretty dark past, with Nazi connections no less, and are a pretty ominous group in general but i wonder how cohesive their goals and members are these days.
From
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/10/don_t_fear_the_brotherhood
talking about Egyptian brotherhood group
....It's not only the regime's apologists who profess to fear the Muslim Brotherhood; I had no trouble finding secular Cairenes (Cairo) who took an equally dim view. The group's slogan is, after all, "Islam is the solution," and the appeal its political leaders make to the rank and file is long on religious orthodoxy. Still, I spent two weeks talking to members of the Brotherhood -- something the secular critics rarely do -- and though I did feel they were putting their best foot forward for a Western journalist, I was struck by their reluctance to impose their views on others and their commitment to democratic process. They had been drawn to the Brotherhood not only by piety but also by the group's reputation for social service and personal probity.
Many of these men were lawyers, doctors, or engineers. But I also spent several evenings with an electrician named Magdy Ashour, who had been elected to parliament from a dismal slum at the furthest edge of Cairo (he's now an independent, after being ousted from the Brotherhood in December). He was at pains to counter what he assumed were my preconceptions. "When people hear the name Muslim Brotherhood, they think of terrorism and suicide bombings," Ashour conceded. "We want to establish the perception of an Islamic group cooperating with other groups, concerned about human rights. We do not want to establish a country like Iran, which thinks that it is ruling with a divine mandate. We want a government based on civil law, with an Islamic source of lawmaking."
And just what is an "Islamic source of lawmaking?" Muhammad Habib, then the Muslim Brotherhood's deputy supreme guide -- its second-ranking official-- explained to me that, under such a system, parliament would seek the advice of religious scholars on issues touching upon religion, though such views could never be binding. A democratically elected parliament, he asserted, would still have the "absolute right" to pass a law the Brotherhood deemed "un-Islamic." And the proper redress for religious objections would be a formal appeal process in the constitutional court.
Maybe they were lying. But I didn't think so. More to the point, the Muslim Brotherhood's then 88-member caucus in the legislature studiously avoided religious issues and worked with secular opposition members on issues of democracy and human rights. They all lived together in a hotel, showed up for work every day, and invited outside experts for policy briefings. It was widely agreed that the Brothers took parliament far more seriously than members of the ruling party ever had. ...
Lay low and take over?
A real possibility.
A sure thing in many folks minds I'm sure.
Much like they socialist state promoters here, get in with democracy and slowly transform the country law by law into a their vision of what it should be. the care taker of the people.