dagblog - Comments for "About the Muslim Brotherhood"

The Muslim Brotherhood

artappraiser — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:21:40 +0000

In reply to About the Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood uncovered
In an exclusive Guardian interview, Egypt's Islamist opposition group sets out its demands
By Jack Shenker in Cairo and Brian Whitaker, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 February 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/08/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-unc...

I must admit, as a feminist

artappraiser — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:32:50 +0000

In reply to I just saw the Times Op-Ed

I must admit, as a feminist interested in the rights of those who hold up half the sky on this globe, that I am automatically prejudiced and suspicious in the first place of organization that calls itself a brotherhood (silly but true,) much less one that as a basic principle wants to see government promote "religion in public life" via politcal power. My feminism is not something I toss away when it comes to politics, borders, wars, etc. (I.E., one can be against the U.S. military intervening in Afghanistan and still think most Taliban and Wahhabis are backward scum practicing a sick distortion of Islam that shouldn't be shown tolerance by most of the world of the 21st century unless they change their attitudes towards females.)

In the same vein, I always wonder whether western liberals who seem to want to show excess enthusiasm and support for organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood would defend young Christian Dominionist activists working to try to influence African states as fervently.

Beyond making sure that people understand that the Muslim Brotherhood is probably not much of a danger to the interests of the U.S.A., I really don't see any reason for liberals to fervently defend them as some seem to want to do. Should they want our approval, let them prove themselves to us. I certainly am not going to write any paens to them based on that op-ed. A little too much suggestion of Bill O'Reilly War on Christmas for me here:

Secular liberal democracy of the American and European variety, with its firm rejection of religion in public life, is not the exclusive model for a legitimate democracy.

Fancy words, show the Egyptian sisters the money.

In a spirit related to the

artappraiser — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:59:02 +0000

In reply to A well-reasoned post, doctor.

In a spirit related to the old nostrum, "don't do or say anything you wouldn't want to see in the New York Times," I would like to point out these two sentences from Mr. El-Errian's op-ed:

We do not intend to take a dominant role in the forthcoming political transition. We are not putting forward a candidate for the presidential elections scheduled for September.

It will be interesting to see if they keep their word now that they've put it in the New York Times.

Good to see you, too, Obey.

we are stardust — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:44:24 +0000

In reply to Thanks for the rec, and

Good to see you, too, Obey. I confess I just do the occasional drive-by link-dropping. Pretty exciting times in the ME. I'm glued to coverage; if this can work even half-well, it's monumental.

I saw a grey fox climb a tree the other night outside the bedroom door. Tiny little thing, but um...awesome to have seen. ;o) Hope the revolution straightens up a bit so I can write it up! Be well.

Very well written. Too many

emerson — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:57:26 +0000

In reply to About the Muslim Brotherhood

Very well written. Too many people just spout opinions that validate their world view. Sometimes it is best to sit back and just listen instead of passing judgement. It gets tiring hearing people speak with certainty about something they knew nothing about when they woke up in the morning but now after a couple of hours of listening to the tv or the radio they are an "expert" on a subject. This practice seems disrespectful to the people who have spent years studying, researching, and directly experiencing things that allow them to truly have an authoritative voice on a subject.

Thanks for the rec, and

Obey — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:26:35 +0000

In reply to I rec this comment highly,

Thanks for the rec, and thanks for the links.

Good to see you back here Stardust!

I rec this comment highly,

we are stardust — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:56:45 +0000

In reply to Great post. My own view is

I rec this comment highly, and your diary, Doc. Are you all aware that this is (maybe) afoot?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41506482/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

The Guardian is more cautious:

Reports that Mubarak will stand down tonight
• Conflicting rumours he will hand power to VP or army
• Army 'says it will meet all protesters' demands'
• Thousands protest for 17th day in Tahrir Square

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/10/egypt-middleeast?commentpage=last#block-18

Live events: http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish

Plus: the Army has been arresting and reportedly torturing protestors picked up on side streets away fron Tahrir Square.

What I wrote was this:Neither

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:35:56 +0000

In reply to The comparison of the

What I wrote was this:

Neither would the Muslim Brotherhood, if they submit to a democratic process, be meaningfully different from the various ultra-orthodox religious parties in the Israeli Knesset, who are explicitly dedicated to promoting their religious teachings through legislation ...

I think my point was clear; this comparison only applies as long as the MB are peaceful and submit to civil

Now, if by "long history of violence" you mean from before 1948, I think the distinction you're trying to draw gets shaky.But let me give you that one.

Where I think we disagree on principle is the idea that if the MB can be disqualified from political life if the group has ever been violent, no matter how peaceful they are or ho peaceful they become. That is nonsense. You can't permanently keep a party away from the bargaining table because of what an earlier version of the party did before 1988 or 1968 or 1948. And if you do, you are actually telling that party to go back to violence. If you're not allowed to run candidates for office because things that happened in 1953 mean your party is "violent," then you might as well stop recruiting candidates and start recruiting gunmen.

If the Muslim Brotherhood reinvents itself as a peaceful democratic party that wants to preserve the Islamic nature of the Egyptian state, I'd say my comparison isn't so outrageous.

I just saw the Times Op-Ed

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:26:01 +0000

In reply to A well-reasoned post, doctor.

I just saw the Times Op-Ed this morning. Even if the MB doesn't end up sticking by all of this in the long run, the very fact that they are trying to explain themselve in the New York Times suggests that they're looking for reasonable dialogue with the West. (Hezbollah doesn't have anything to say to the Times.)

The comparison of the

Terrible Comparison — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:17:00 +0000

In reply to About the Muslim Brotherhood

The comparison of the religious parties in Israel to the Muslim Brotherhood is a outrageous. In Israel they want to preserve the Jewish nature of the state. They have never been involved in terror, war or oppression. They have never advocated violence.

The Muslim Brotherhood has a long history of violence, is affiliated with other radical Islamic groups. If it is changing is debating, but comparing peace loving religious Jews to a group that advances is cause with violence is terrible