|
We need to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
Yes, it's a very bad thing.
We need to continue to show NO SUPPORT for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. |
So you support oppressive dictatorships? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
My point is two-fold:
1. Political Islam was created as an opposition to the Egyptian dictatorship, and the Egyptian regime continues to fan the flames of violent Jihadist groups. The fact that America and the West are allied to the Egyptian regime (and others) is one of the main reasons al-Qaida attacked America. An end to the Egyptian oppressive dictatorship and an end to Western support is something that is NECESSARY beyond all reasonable doubt if we are to address the problem of violent Islamic extremism.
2. El Shater, according to the article, is taking the Muslim Brotherhood in completely the opposite direction of how you view the MB. The article suggests he has renounced violence, is convincing previously violent Jihadist groups to also renounce violence and is campaigning for a forward looking, modern democratic Egypt. Your problem seems to be in the authenticity of the article and the group promoting it. Well Conflicts Forum is run by an ex-MI6 man who knows his about the middle east. The group advocate a dialogue with Islamic groups as they see a stark distinction between Islamists like al-Qaida and the more moderate types such as Hamas or Hizballah, whereas people like you, no offence, simply cannot see any further past the fact they happen to be Muslims, and therefore you think they are all the same - out to kill all non-Muslims.
If El Shater is how the article discribes him, and if that is what the people of Egypt want, then I see no negative impact for anyone. Egypt will be a democracy, the main factor encouraging violent exremism will have disappeared and it will send a clear message across the Muslim world that there is an alternative (successful) moderate Islamist ideology to the one practiced by al-Qaida...
Anyway, don't you normally like to say that Islam needs to modernise like Christianity? Yet now you've been made aware of someone that apparently is trying to do just that, you reject it anyway because he's a Muslim?
I get the feeling that you're not giving this idea a chance because of your preconceptions about any group that has the misfortune of being Muslim... |
Actions speak louder than words ever will.
And while yes, it's nice that someone is trying to offer an olive branch, they'll have to earn that trust before it's ever given.
One simply doesn't believe a mouthpiece from this group given their long sordid history.
For all we know, given the Brotherhood's underlying mantra, they're trying to make way for Shira to slip through while under the guise of 'democracy'.
That's not to say that we should dismiss El Shater all together; the fact that any kind of talk is coming from that direction is intriguing but let's not forget who they are in the process. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Actions speak louder than words ever will.
And while yes, it's nice that someone is trying to offer an olive branch, they'll have to earn that trust before it's ever given.
One simply doesn't believe a mouthpiece from this group given their long sordid history.
For all we know, given the Brotherhood's underlying mantra, they're trying to make way for Shira to slip through while under the guise of 'democracy'.
That's not to say that we should dismiss El Shater all together; the fact that any kind of talk is coming from that direction is intriguing but let's not forget who they are in the process. |
To be fair, as far as international terrorism goes, I'm not aware of the Muslim Brotherhood being involved in that much activity. They're active inside Egypt (not surprising given the political system in place), but other Islamist terrorist groups, such as Hamas, broke away from them because they did not take up violence... |
|
|
| Epicurus |
It depends what you mean by the word 'support', but from the following statement you made in your initial post,
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
If the West truely want to address the issues faced by Islamic extremism, and they truely are in favour of spreading democracy, imo, they need to support El Shater and help him to power. |
I construe your use of the word support in this context as somehow aiding him to power by either providing him with financial, military or political support; in other words, aiding his ascent to power by providing him with some means or another. If that's the case, then I think your suggestion is misguided.
If you really want the Muslim brotherhood to take power because you believe the people of Egypt would want it to be so, then you can help precipitate that action not by arguing for support (construed as above) of the Muslim Brotherhood, but by pushing your government to cease its support for Mubarak's dictatorial regime. This is so because of the following reasons:
First of all, from a pragmatic perspective, anything the West, specifically the US and the UK, support in the Middle East is, from a Middle Eastern perspective (in general), viewed as the kiss of death. In other words, your support for the Muslim Brotherhood would have an immediate backlash against them, because they would be viewed as US/UK puppets, thus undermining your own objective.
Second of all, the entire concept of interferring in other people's political processes by supporting one candidate over another in order to "help them" or to "bring them democracy" or to "free them from the shackles of tyranny", especially when it comes to the Middle East, reeks of patriarchalism. How do you know that the Muslim Brotherhood even wants the West's help or support? Who gives the West the mandate to interfere in other people's political processes? Is this 'White Man's Burden' from a different perspective? If the West (or anyone else) really wants to help the Middle East, then the West (or anyone else) should cease to support Mubarak and his regime, instead of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and should furthermore cease to interfere in Middle Eatern affairs, period. Again, that includes NOT supporting dictators like Mubarak and his ilk, and NOT supporting fundamentalist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, (regardless of how much you think they've become moderates). It means NOT supporting anyone at all.
I strongly suspect that without US help, Mubarak and his government would eventually fall, and if the people of Egypt choose to go with the Muslim Brotherhood, either through elections or through revolution, then so be it, regardless of how misguided their choice would be (in my opinion). |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
I construe your use of the word support in this context as somehow aiding him to power by either providing him with financial, military or political support; in other words, aiding his ascent to power by providing him with some means or another. If that's the case, then I think your suggestion is misguided.
If you really want the Muslim brotherhood to take power because you believe the people of Egypt would want it to be so, then you can help precipitate that action not by arguing for support (construed as above) of the Muslim Brotherhood, but by pushing your government to cease its support for Mubarak's dictatorial regime. This is so because of the following reasons:
First of all, from a pragmatic perspective, anything the West, specifically the US and the UK, support in the Middle East is, from a Middle Eastern perspective (in general), viewed as the kiss of death. In other words, your support for the Muslim Brotherhood would have an immediate backlash against them, because they would be viewed as US/UK puppets, thus undermining your own objective.
Second of all, the entire concept of interferring in other people's political processes by supporting one candidate over another in order to "help them" or to "bring them democracy" or to "free them from the shackles of tyranny", especially when it comes to the Middle East, reeks of patriarchalism. How do you know that the Muslim Brotherhood even wants the West's help or support? Who gives the West the mandate to interfere in other people's political processes? Is this 'White Man's Burden' from a different perspective? If the West (or anyone else) really wants to help the Middle East, then the West (or anyone else) should cease to support Mubarak and his regime, instead of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and should furthermore cease to interfere in Middle Eatern affairs, period. Again, that includes NOT supporting dictators like Mubarak and his ilk, and NOT supporting fundamentalist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, (regardless of how much you think they've become moderates). It means NOT supporting anyone at all.
I strongly suspect that without US help, Mubarak and his government would eventually fall, and if the people of Egypt choose to go with the Muslim Brotherhood, either through elections or through revolution, then so be it, regardless of how misguided their choice would be (in my opinion). |
Yep I agree 100%.
When I said "help" I didn't mean in the 'American' sense of the word! (ie interfering).
And yes, when I said "help" it probably could have better been said simply "by not supporting Mubarak". Our governments could still declare their support for democracy in Egypt without resorting to the underhand tactics the West normally does. Perhaps Egyptian aid could be given on condition of democratisation, that way, there is no subversion and either Mubarak accepts the aid and allows greater democracy, or he doesn't and gets no aid, either way he'd be on his way out. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
regardless of how misguided their choice would be (in my opinion). |
Just out of interest, being of Lebanese descent, you're probably in a better position to comment than us, why do you say their choice will be misguided?
I think Islamist groups know that a fundamental implementation of Sharia Law (as proposed by al-Qaida) would never work as it would be rejected by the people like in Afghanistan. I think Islamist groups that realise this will moderate to become the Islamic counterparts to the Christian Right in America. In fact, the Western influences rejected by Islamists would also probably be opposed by the Christian Right as well. I see future Islamist states as pretty much similar to Ireland before the EU or Poland today (or large swathes of America). They just happen to be Muslims instead of right-wing Christians!
Of course, that's not to say I support right-wing religious groups because I don't, I fundamentally oppose them, but it'd at least be a step in the right direction...(if the article is accurate and the MB are modernising) |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yep I agree 100%.
When I said "help" I didn't mean in the 'American' sense of the word! (ie interfering).
And yes, when I said "help" it probably could have better been said simply "by not supporting Mubarak". Our governments could still declare their support for democracy in Egypt without resorting to the underhand tactics the West normally does. Perhaps Egyptian aid could be given on condition of democratisation, that way, there is no subversion and either Mubarak accepts the aid and allows greater democracy, or he doesn't and gets no aid, either way he'd be on his way out. |
Well, I'm glad you clarified your use of the word 'support'. My entire argument was obviously dependent on it being construed in a particular way (as I made clear in the preface of my previous post). But if you define 'support for the Muslim Brotherhood' as 'lack of support for the Mubarak regime', then you won't get any objections from me. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
Well, I'm glad you clarified your use of the word 'support'. My entire argument was obviously dependent on it being construed in a particular way (as I made clear in the preface of my previous post). But if you define 'support for the Muslim Brotherhood' as 'lack of support for the Mubarak regime', then you won't get any objections from me. |
IMO, a policy of not supporting the Egyptian dictatorship would have two positives - one it would give the Egyptian people the chance to decide how they wanted to be ruled, and secondly, it would remove the reason Islamists hate the West |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| "moderatism" is the cess-pool that extremism pulls itself out of. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Just out of interest, being of Lebanese descent, you're probably in a better position to comment than us, why do you say their choice will be misguided? |
I said their choice will be misguided not because of any profund insight on my part with regards to the Muslim Brotherhood, but because of my deep mistrust of any political ideology that's grounded in religion (whether it be Islamic or not) being compatible with democracy in the long run.
I have to admit that my knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (in particular) is not as deep as I would like, and thus I'll refrain from commenting on them beyond the superficial assertion that I made at the end of my previous post. I guess my much deeper knowledge of other movements whose political ideology is grounded in Islam (such as Hizballah in particular, and Hamas - an outgrowth of the MB) has created this mistrust, and as a result, generalizations from these groups to groups such as the MB in Egypt manifests itself in the form of little comments such as the ones made above. The mind's subconscious processes are wonderful aren't they :p
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I think Islamist groups know that a fundamental implementation of Sharia Law (as proposed by al-Qaida) would never work as it would be rejected by the people like in Afghanistan. I think Islamist groups that realise this will moderate to become the Islamic counterparts to the Christian Right in America. In fact, the Western influences rejected by Islamists would also probably be opposed by the Christian Right as well. I see future Islamist states as pretty much similar to Ireland before the EU or Poland today (or large swathes of America). They just happen to be Muslims instead of right-wing Christians! |
I think you're being way too optimistic here. There are numerous examples of Islamist groups that have implemented fundamentalist and thus revolting versions of Sharia law whenever they ceased power, and they continue to be in power (sometimes against the wishes of a major portion of their populations).
You only have to look at Iran as a prime example of this. The irony in Iran's case is that Khomeini swept into power under the guise of liberating his people from the tyranny of the Shah while promising them freedom and democracy, only for him to implement Iran's current version of an Islamic theocracy. I don't see the Iranian mullahs modernizing anytime soon, despite the rumbling of certain sectors of their population. Other examples include the great Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose Wahhabi ideology needs no introduction I assume, not to mention Sudan's government, Somalia's (previous) government (before it was deposed by Ethiopian troops backed by the US), and certain sectors of Nigeria. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Ah yes my comments refer to Islamist groups in democracies. Take Hamas for instance (or Hizballah). They rely on being elected and have a large part of the population that oppose their views. For groups like that to gain power, they must eventually make themselves accessible to those people who oppose or are suspicious of them.
It's exactly the same process that political parties the world over, regardless of ideology, have to undertake eventually - look at Labour in the UK, years out of power due to the perceived failure of socialist policies, remodelled themselves under Blair and moved closer to the centre meaning they won the extra support of those that previously opposed and feared them.
Islamist groups in democratic societies like Lebanon or Palestine (well, democracies in a sense), imo, have no choice but to modernise or lose out in the polls as only a minority, imo, would accept living in the type of society groups like al-Qaida advocate... |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Ah yes my comments refer to Islamist groups in democracies. Take Hamas for instance (or Hizballah). They rely on being elected and have a large part of the population that oppose their views. For groups like that to gain power, they must eventually make themselves accessible to those people who oppose or are suspicious of them.
It's exactly the same process that political parties the world over, regardless of ideology, have to undertake eventually - look at Labour in the UK, years out of power due to the perceived failure of socialist policies, remodelled themselves under Blair and moved closer to the centre meaning they won the extra support of those that previously opposed and feared them.
Islamist groups in democratic societies like Lebanon or Palestine (well, democracies in a sense), imo, have no choice but to modernise or lose out in the polls as only a minority, imo, would accept living in the type of society groups like al-Qaida advocate... |
Well, if you restrict your comments to Islamist groups in democracies, then what guarantee do you have that those groups whose ideologies are explicitly mutually exclusive with democracy will not simply use the democratic process to cease power and then either abolish or subvert that same democracy in favour of their interests?
The reason why ideology is important is as follows: if a group, whatever it may be, explictly espouses an ideology that is contradictory to democracy, or at the very least incompatible with democracy, then why should I trust that they will respect this democratic process upon gaining power, if they gain power? They may, but I have no faith that they will, and I think you have too much faith that they will.
Since you bring up Hizballah, this is a group which serves as a prime example of an organization whose political ideology is grounded in a fundamentalist Islamic ideology and that has used and continues to use the democratic process in Lebanon to subvert it. I could write a book-length essay on this, but suffice it to say that I am of the belief that Hizballah entered the Lebanese democratic process for one of two reasons: either to establish their conception of an Islamic state as explicitly proclaimed in their charter (this despite Nasrallah's claims to the contrary), or to protect their anomalous existence as an entity wishing to operate outside of the state's jurisdiction (for various reasons). The former goal may be a bit of a stretch, although not implausible in the long run, but the latter goal seems more on target. Of course, they will make claims to the contrary, but the evidence, in my opinion, suggests otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
