Friday
Apr162010
MENA House: An Interview with Head of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood
Friday, April 16, 2010 at 12:38 
Christina Baghdady notes a special political appearance on Egyptian television:On Wednesday, Egyptian broadcast journalist Mona el Shazli conducted a rare and exclusive interview with Dr Mohammed Badi’a, the leader of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Several issues were discussed, notably the internal disputes within the MB and its reflections on the media. Amidst reported disputes between the MB’s "members of Parliament and reformists", members of the Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau have submitted a folder of documents for an official formation a political party to the organization’s parliamentary faction. This, however, has caused significant “distress” to the Shura Council, who consider themselves as the Brotherhood’s highest authority.
In the interview, Badi’a claimed that these reports were unfounded. He said the MB has appointed media consultants for the political party to communicate with the press in an honest manner.
The interview also considered an "official" statement from the MB supporting a Presidential bid by Mohammad El Baradei. Badi'a said that the political group are supporting el Baradei as he had made similar proposals to those put by the MB in recent years (although he did not specify the content of those proposal). Badi’a asserted that the Nobel Peace Prize winner was able to move the "stagnant" water. a reference which commentators may analyse as revitalising the opposition.
Badi’a said that his party do not intend to field a candidate in the election, as their primary aim is to ensure a "fair" leader comes to power. Badi'a adds that the MB's electorate has expanded to "everyone" and that it seeks political leadership adopting Islam for all people to create a "fair" society.
Badi'a called for a free and fair election and said he had no objection to Gamal Mubarak, son of President Hosni Mubarak, running for the presidency as long as he did so in a legitimate manner. The head of the MB, however, made clear his objections to the banning of the MB, as he said there were no legal grounds. Badi'a claimed that the MB are not a threat to the security of society; their forthcoming media campaign would reflect on their civil activities, such as building Islamic schools, providing jobs, and developing the activities of those who wish to join their party.
Mona el Shazli concluded the interview by asking, "Out of the possible scenarios, what direction do the Brotherhood intend to take: to isolate themselves from the political community, to reform themselves internally, or to make a truce with the regime for the current period?" Dr Bada’i rejected these scenarios, saying instead that the MB will push for economic reform and look to play a significant role in change for the good of Egypt.
Reader Comments (19)
Couple of points:
1) "The interview also considered an “official” statement from the MB supporting a Presidential bid by Mohammad El Baradei." Considering the political climate in Egypt I would dare to say this is a kiss of death for an presidential aspirations El Baradei had.
2) "Badi’a adds that the MB’s electorate has expanded to “everyone” and that it seeks political leadership adopting Islam for all people to create a “fair” society." Typical Brotherhood ideology. They only think in terms of Islam for all people. One wonders what the Copts would think about this. I would have to imagine, considering the fact religious orthodoxy is sweeping the nation, the state sponsored persecution would only get worse--especially so if the Brotherhood is intent on bringing Islam to them.
All in all the Brotherhood should have the right to freely run but the world should pay attention to what happens next. When the brotherhood reaches power:
1) The treaty with Israel goes bye bye and third front will open meaning open warfare. This will further drag the world down into the politcal and religious conflict with no winners at all. Worst of all this could preciptate into a global conflict when the Islamic world tries to take out Israel. The mistake the Islamic world will make is the Western world will let that happen(least of lets not foget Israel's nukes.) It won't and if the Islamic world thinks the West is already at war with them they are in for a very rude surprise. Hopefully these Islamists will be smart enough to realize the West will always be more ideologically aligned with Israel than any Islamic movement--they will because one believes in democracy while the other only uses it as tool to obtain power
2) Even though the Brotherhood has sworn of violence their goal of Islam for all(the whole world) will not have changed. While they may have sworn of violence the ideology is in fact the bedrock foundation of most fanatics the world over, and thus it will lead to an escalation in terrorism. It will lead to an escalation simply because the Brotherhood ideology allowed to grow will only increase the recruit base wishing to employ violence to achieve the same goals. The reality is the fanatics and the Brotherhood have the same goal--all submitting to Allah.
3) The possibility of a Brotherhood/Wahhabi front becomes a real possibility. This will mean more power for Islamists to ply their trade futher segregating the Islamic world from the rest of humanity. Puritanically speaking it would make the blurred lines of Dar Al Harb and Dar Al Islam solidify.
4) With an upswing in Islamist thought it will only make the horrible situation for religious minorities around the globe worse. Make no mistake about the Brotherhood is a Salafist organization and the Dhimmi codes will be enforced with a vigor not yet seen. It will in fact lend power to Islamists organizations looking to topple already nominal "secular" states such as Turkey, Malaysis, and Indonesia.
As sad as this may seem, from a western standpoint, Mubarak is the lesser of the evils for the world as a whole. The Bortherhood coming to power is only going widen the gulf between civilizations simply because of their undying vow of seeing Islam span the globe hook or crook. This attitude will make the clash of civilizations a reality as more and more Muslims flock to their banner and non Muslims realize the true goals of the Brotherhood once allowed to be freely aired.
Thx
Bill
For anyone wanting to find out what the Brotherhood is all about just read "Milestones" by Sayyid Qutb. Quite an eye opener and will clearly demonstrate their ideology is only one sided and clearly divisive visa a vie Muslim and non Muslim. It also provides an explanation of why the Brotherhood went non violent. The did so because they believed in a staged process and violence at this date was not good for Islam at this point. Note it did not swear it off but hinged it on Quranic injunctions that Muslims should not wage war to spread faith when they did not have the power to do so. This is best exemplified their off shoot Islamic Jihad when the renounced violence. Their reason for doing so was that presently it was not good for Islam. I have read a number of these and it is amazing that not one document offered real regret for their victims it was only regret that it damaged the image of Islam. It should also be noted the goals never changed just the tactics.
Bill and Christina,
RE Bill's 2) All in all the Brotherhood should have the right to freely run but the world should pay attention to what happens next. When the brotherhood reaches power: etc. (Christina, you also had a similar list of disasters in a previous discussion of if the MB were in power)
Doesn't the MB already form an important part of the current opposition in parliament? In the 2005 parliamentary elections, the Brotherhood's candidates, who ran as independents because they were banned as a political party, won 88 seats (20% of the total) to form the largest opposition bloc. Approved opposition parties won only 14 seats. Now there seems to be a debate about whether the Brotherhood should remain banned. If they continue to run as independents they're going to get some of their members elected anyway, right?
Christina, assuming that the ban on the MB continues, do you think the MB is really so popular that if free and fair elections were held, these MB "independents" would sweep to a majority election victory? And what happens when independents, not any particular party, hold the majority of seats in parliament?
Catherine,
The MB holds about 80 seats in the parliment. They define themselves not as MB but with other affiliations. However it is a open secret they ar MB members. Christina should be able to add more on this.
Thx
Bill
Bill
A thorough analysis indeed. I'll be posting up an analysis on the MB-however, you've hit it right on the spot! This is their nature and a leopard does not change its spots.
It's a purely a tribal mentality-everyone for himself rather than for the greater good.
The MB are currently in hibernation-and the Gama'at are not too far away from them.
In addition certain people (a growing minority) are reflecting very hostile views towards non-muslims (in particular non-muslims in Egypt). I was alarmed to read at the end of one blog someone writing, 'Copts think they are the only people who are repressed in Egypt but so are we (Muslims)'. He then goes on to add, 'So why don't you all leave this country to its rightful owners and leave us alone'.
The MB will not deny similar statements.
The MB are repressed because they pose a threat politically. However, a large majority of non-Muslims in Egypt are repressed because of their religious affiliation.
'their goals never changed-just the tactics' yes...exactly Bill!!
Catherine,
In 2005 how many of the population went to the voting booth? Not very many. So the results in 2005 do not reflect the full opinion of the public. However they are the most effective opposition-y? Because they hit civil society (unlike any other oppoisition party). They provide schools, charities, hospitals e.t.c for muslims. Notice...'deen wil dawla'...
i.e FIRST RELIGION and then the state. A cause for concern? Just as Bill pointed out-their ideology hasn't changed. Simply their tactics...
Christina,
Excellent point about not many going to the polls. Frankly I missed that entirely. This may bode well because everyone knows the most organized opposition in Egypt in the MB and it is certain their voters went to the polls. Who knows maybe if given the chance to vote freely you wouldn't see the MB in power? We could see the true voice of Egypt emerge and they may dislike the MB as much as they do Mubarak.
As for Gama’at could you provide little background on them. If I am correct they were a splinter group from the MB who tried to assasinate Mubarak back in the 90's.
Gotta love the statement ‘So why don’t you all leave this country to its rightful owners and leave us alone’. News flash to this nitwit the Copts are in fact the original inhabitants of Egypt. To many forget before Egypt was conqured they were pagan then Christian. This just stinks of Islamist dealing in revionist history to achieve their aims. Reminds of me of numerous attempts of Islamists to lay sole claim to Jerusalem saying the ancient Jewish sites actually never existed.
Arggh why can't we all just get along!!
Thx
Bill
Catherine,
Bill actually did point out-Egypt was initially pagan...then Christian. And the Copts are the converted pagans of Egypt-i.e Egyptians...i.e natives. The Arabs then came into Egypt-and the Egyptians were given the choice: Pay the Gizya (a tax which can go up and up...) or be killed...or convert.
However, picking up on Bill's point (again)...why can't everyone live in peace and just get on with it?
Bill: I'll write up a short background on the Gama't soon. They are indeed a splinter group from the MB. However, they pick up arms (more directly associated with assasinations and attacks)...more to follow shortly...
Catherine and Christina,
As Christina notes I did note the fact the pagans were the rightfully inhabitants of early Egypt. They became arabs despite being African when Arab became the language of the land. This can simply be looked at as either Egypt being Islamasized or Arabinized. Frankly this process of turning the conqured states into an Arab or Islamic society is something well supported in history. Iran was originally Zoroastrian, Turkey Christian(actual the home of Orthodox Christianity), and Afghanistn Buddhist. Now all are almost 100% Islamic with very very small religious minorities. Egypt went through the same process but for some reason the copts held out and refused to convert. The best answer why is the fact Muhammad's only wife to bear a child was Egyptian and this statement from him "“When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts for they are your proteges and kith and kin.”
Thx
Bill
My friends,
I was joking about the particular sentence of Bill's I quoted - please let's also maintain a sense of humour as well as live in peace and just get on with it. :-)
Note to Mike Dunne - can we have larger smiley faces in the new site?
Catherine,
Sorry didn't catch the smiley face!!! No worries I never take any of your comments in a negative light just obviously a bit too serious sometimes! :)
Bill
Hmmm - I wouldn't have been too happy either if someone had replied like that to me *without* a smiley face! You must forgive my tendency to pounce on anything remotely amusing - it's the consequence of a deadly serious Catholic upbringing I'm afraid :-).
:-) :-) :-)
Hmm, it looks like the Disqus commenting system we're hoping to use doesn't have its own emoticons so we may just have to get creative with bold text :)
Actually, that doesn't make much of a difference...
Catherine,
I knew it you were one of those "evil catholics!!!" So when I am going to get the obligatory burn in hell comment!!! HA HA :)
Thx
bill
Bill,
Yes - it was rather obvious, wasn't it?
But those "evil Catholics" were a number of priests, nuns and a certain pastor who are responsible for many completely unnecessary periods of fear and guilt in my life and the lives of some of my relatives (who couldn't help passing them on down). I left their company long ago, but as my mother says, "Once a Catholic - always a Catholic! :-)
Catherine,
Funny I was baptized catholic and communed Lutheran!!! Half the family is still Catholic though. I do get a kick out of going to weddings in the family and when we do communion we always have the same priest. Every single time this priest wrinkles his face in disgust at giving a Lutheran communion--first time he actually tried to refuse until my cousing gave him the look of death!
Thx
Bill