Talk:Muslim Brotherhood/Archive 2

Details?
[Who is responsible for this section? This is the least helpful "discussion" I have ever seen; using loaded terms such as "monsters" and "rabid anti-semetics" does not contribute to the issues at hand or the unbiased and informative atmosphere which Wikipedia should be attempting to create. Good to know that even after so much effort, Wikipedia is still able to be heavily influenced by misinformed bigots.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.156.175 (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Muslim Brotherhood is, as everyone knows, a key political movement. And yet, this article almost wholly lacks details about the Brothers' political program. The Muslim Brotherhood is most significant as a political movement demanding change - not as a source of terrorism or an expression of Islam. That fact is missing from this article. This is of course natural, because the Western press does not really report on the properly political aspects of so-called Islamism.

The Muslim Brotherhood, or Ikhwan, certainly is a key political movement(!). "not as a force of terrroism or an expression of Islam".....wow, that's a good one! As supporters of the murder of innocent civilians and rabid anti-semetics (as are all Islamists, by definition), with an express goal of undermining all democracratic/republican forms of government, all Judeo-Christian precepts regarding individual freedoms and rights, and for that matter any form of The Enlightenment, these monsters seek to return the world to 7th Century, under Sharia Law in the ultimate, world wide Caliphate. The author of this whitewash must be one of our friendly, anti-American, anti-Judeo Christian, Progressive/Marxist pals ..... no doubt a professor of some repute in the wonderful world of academia! Suggest you read te Koran - Here's a quote "From those, too, who call themselves Christians......so we estranged them, with emnity and and hatred between them between the one and the other, to the day of Judgement" (Dura 5). Suggest you do some reading, y'all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.112.204 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to discuss the Brothers' views of the world order, of economics, of ways to implement sharia, etc. See this recent al-Ahram article for some details: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/858/eg7.htm 76.29.56.100 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Details about Political Program of th MB ?
Let us not be too academic and listen what the MB has to say about it herself !! A document found in Switzerland called "The Project" unfolds the long term goals, plans and strategy of the MB and we can see that it IS implemented at this moment. A recent document of the MB found in 2005 in the USA "Strategic Goal for the group in North America" and its evaluation explains the same progam VERY explicitly. Their program is "Civilization Jihad" (page 5/18) meaning Islamisation of the West and enforcing Sharia by using the weakness of the West itself (laws, institutions, freedoms, etc.) and what this means they make that also explicitly clear. Read it yourself at page 7/18 (par. "Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother ..")

al-Zawahiri
This article reads like a white wash and leaves out any mention of al-Zawahiri. The Brotherhood's history is already documented in many books, and a Frontline episode. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/special/sala.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooostephen (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrections
Great Effort for whoever collated these facts, but I have a question regarding dropping out Ahmed Maher Pasha's assasination. He was the Prime minister at that time and scholars unanimously agree that he was assassinated by a member of the MB.

General comment
In general, concerning this page, assertions that it has an anti-Muslim Brotherhood tilt and that the Muslim Brotherhood has moderated significantly are quite laughable. These notions are based on recent apologetics by Westerners who neither speak Arabic nor have expertise in the Middle East. Robert Leiken, for example, whose Foreign Affairs article is cited in this article. But this article has been widely rebutted, far more successfully than the original, which itself largely lacked attributions to named sources. Equally important, Leiken's expertise, according to his biography at Brookings Institution, is in "Mexico, Latin America, Immigration." It was only after Patrick Poole called Leiken on this did the latter rewrite his biography at the Nixon Center, proclaiming his self-described expertise. . But Leiken has been writing on Muslims, rather lamely at that, for only about 18 months. As Wikipedia itself notes, Leiken is a Latin American expert especially famed for his 1984 support of the Sandanistas,, before his 1986 change of heart, and deciding that gee, no, the Sandanistas were violent after all.

Moreover, Leiken based his claim of MB moderation largely on a work reputedly by Hasan al-Hudaybi, "Preachers, not Judges," which is actually a forgery, according to a real scholar of Islam, Barbara Zollner, Director of Islamic Studies at Birbeck College, University of London. This book is discussed in her PhD dissertation, and she has a new book about it with Rutledge, forthcoming in 2008--The Muslim Brotherhood: Hasan al-Hudaybi and Ideology. Her discussion of this forgery at a recent Georgetown University conference is available here

Moreover, Leiken's research is based largely on interviews done by young, naive interns sent to the Middle East, and their reports following soft-ball interviews and amicable teas with various unnamed Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Neither these interns nor Leiken, nor his partner Stephen Brooke bothered to verify these leaders' sentiments against their other pronouncements in English or Arabic. One of Leiken's so-called moderate sources, for example, was Egyptian doctor and MB 'guidance counsel' Abd El Monem Abo El Fotouh who on Aug. 4, 2006, told the New York Times, "'[T]he United States...invaded Iraq to divide Muslim'" and asserted that it was "better to support a Hezbollah—Iranian agenda than an 'American—Zionist' one,", cited again in an October 2006 article on the Muslim Brotherhood El Fotouh had also claimed he merely called on Muslims to perform their basic duty when he urged them in Al Ahram to conduct jihad against America. This is Leiken's idea of a moderate.

Whoever is ultimately responsible for editing this page, I caution against using apologetic Western journalists as definitive sources. They are wholly unschooled in Islam and by and large function as Muslim Brotherhood mouthpieces, not reporters in the true sense of the word. Billybud989 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Egypt
Several problems with this article: 1. although the best-known group by the name 'Muslim Brotherhood' is Egyptian, there are many nominally independent groups with the same name in other countries. Experts differ about the degree to which the groups coordinate, or take orders from the Egyptian branch, etc... this article says nothing about these other national groups. 2. the word 'Moslem' does not exist. It is a Britishism that many Muslims find insulting. 3. it's too short, and makes no note of the difference between groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which are quasi-religious associations of a type common in the Muslim world (albeit much more politically active and militant than most), the ulema from whom most members are drawn, and terrorist groups that have some intersection of membership. Someone who knows more about this subject ought to edit this article. --142.177.104.87 7 Jan 2003, 23:15


 * yes, you are right. I tried to correct some parts (including the wrong piece of information that the brotherhood was founded by Qutb in the 50s), but a lot more needs to be written... --Elian 8 Jan 2003, 00:33


 * The Muslim Brotherhood article has changed considerably since 142.177.104.87's comments. * 1. The Egyptian branch of the brotherhood is not portrayed as the organization's headquarters. * 2. The word "Moslem" does not appear even once. * 3. The article is not short and explains some differences between the different branches of the Brotherhood. * 4. And it no longer says that the brotherhood was founded by Qutb in the 50s. --AI 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there are alot of wrong things here make any one from egypt laughing like : they support abd elnaseer and killed noqrashi noqrashi was the king prime minister that means before abd el naser comes i suggest to go and read more about them because ther are alot of mistakes here you can see information from there site [ www.ikhwanonline.com --81.10.3.209 1 Oct 2004, 17:02

[[ikhwanonline.com] --AI 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)]


 * The Muslim Brotherhood article no longer contains the comments referred to by 81.10.3.209. --AI 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Members: Ayman Elzawahry is not part of this organization, but was part of a different one (Jamaa Islameya). The brotherhood is strictly against Alqaeda's terrorism and have denounced violence alltogether. This article needs a lot of work!

There is no talk here of the Muslim Brotherhood's support for Hitler and the Nazi's in WWII, or of their strict opposition to the Zionist movement and their approval of the persecution ofJews, even the Holocaust?!?!?!?!?!
 * That's not correct; the main articles discuss the Brotherhood's opposition to Zionism at length. As for their alleged support for Nazism, the main articles specifically refute this claim, citing authoritative academic sources: the Brotherhood were against Nazism. --Beroul 10:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Beroul's claim is now definitively refuted by numerous scholarly monographs since 2005, in German and in English, drawing on recently released German Nazi, British, American and other archives, as well as personal memoirs and other sources. See below on this discussion page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.224.148 (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just thought i would suggest people take a look at Mona El Ghobashy's (I believe she's a professor at NYU. Her knowledge of Egyptian - and regional - politics is very impressive) article on the MB's evolution over the years in the International Journal of Middle East Studies. You can get a scanned pdf copy off felow Arabist's blog at The Metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. There's also an article in the Middle East Report on the MB's performance in parliament since they snatched a shocking 88 seats of parliament in November 2005, against all the odds of rigging, voter intimidation, vote-buying and violence set up by the Mubarak regime. Check it out at The Brotherhood Goes to Parliament. I think that's all i have for now. Bassemkhalifa 12:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Update since 2005 elections
I'd like to propose the following addition to the text about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It picks up from the winter 2005 elections and would follow what is currently the penultimate paragraph of that section:

In Parliamentary elections held in November 2005, Brotherhood candidates, standing as independents to circumvent a formal ban on the movement’s participation in politics, won 88 of 454 seats, becoming the largest opposition bloc. This came despite an election campaign marred by many irregularities (including allegations of vote rigging) and the arrest of hundreds of Brotherhood members. Approved opposition parties, meanwhile, won just 14 seats.

This success was a vindication of a strategy of political participation begun as far back as 1984. At the same time, the Brotherhood found itself under more scrutiny than it had ever faced before. While secular elites feared that a resurgent Brotherhood would feel emboldened to impose their version of Islam on Egypt, debate within the political elite was renewed about whether the organization should remain banned. The continued arbitrary arrest of Brotherhood members – the organization claimed over 700 hundred were detained between Spring and Autumn 2006 – strongly suggests the authorities have been “unnerved” by their success.

The linked questions of “allegiance” and “ideology” remain at the centre of the debate over the Brotherhood’s role in Egyptian politics. Critics have argued that the strategy of political participation is purely tactical, allowing the organization to put itself in a position whereby it can start to introduce sharia law. ‘Adil Hammouda, editor-in-chief of al-Fajr, even went so far as to suggest that “the next steps after the Brothers reach Parliament is the cancellation of democracy.”  Others point to an ambiguous relationship between the Parliamentary Bloc and the organization’s Guidance Council, suggesting that MPs will simply follow instructions from the centre. An examination of the Brotherhood’s record in Parliament suggests that such fears are unfounded. Indeed, it is their professionalism and action on important issues that has been most noteworthy – in particular a nationwide information campaign to calm fears following an outbreak of the H5N1 “Bird Flu” virus in February 2006, and their opposition to the renewal of Egypt’s Emergency Law in April.

Between December 2005 and July 2006, 80% of parliamentary activity was initiated by members of the Bloc. This activity has taken the form of requests for information, proposing legislation and responding to the Government’s budget. When the budget was presented in February 2006, rather than be restricted by the traditional 5 minutes allotted to each MP to discuss it, they published a detailed, 300-page response. Given the government’s majority, it was unsurprising that the budget was passed. Significantly, however, a number of MPs from the government side voted with the opposition.

Far from being merely the mouthpiece of the organisation’s Cairo HQ, the Brotherhood’s MPs have repeatedly stressed their desire to reform Parliament as the basis for wider reform. Husayn Muhammad Ibrahim, the bloc’s vice-chairman stated in an interview: “We want people to see Parliament as a place were steps can happen…” Perhaps most importantly they have worked hard to answer critics of their democratic credentials by demonstrating that they take Parliament seriously – not least by an unmatched record of attendance.

Working to ensure the Parliament ceases to be merely a rubber stamp and holding the government to account are clearly worthy goals. However, questions – and perhaps doubts – regarding the Brotherhood’s commitment to democracy will remain as long as there is a perceived lack of transparency within the organisation’s wider structures. It is also clear that the government will not willingly surrender its current ascendancy. 2007 has seen a further crackdown on the Brotherhood. Warnings from President Mubarak that the organization was a threat to Egyptian national security were followed up by arrests that have targeted its financial infrastructure. The Brotherhood were also forced to deny that they were accusations by state-controlled media that they were forming a militia after Islamist students attending a protest march at al-Azhar University wore military-style uniforms and balaclavas. Some observers have predicted a wider assault on opposition parties in general, along with the media, ahead of elections timetabled for later this year.  Nicholas wright 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Typo
"They have not supported movements like al-Jihad and al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya in Egypt and mujahedeen ment of Muslim communities in Europe and the United States." That "ment" must be a typo, but I cannot guess what it was meant to say. Jogback 19:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "Ment" was probably "movement" Alberuni 20:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Probably, I changed it to "movement." --AI 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sufi?
It is said in the article that Muslim Brotherhood rejects Sufi. But in Hassan Al-Banna's Book Majmu'ar-Rosa'il (Indonesian Version) it is stated that Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun is thariqah sufiyyah and also sports club, social organizatioan, and ofcourse dakwah salafiyyah. Maybe what the writer meant is extreme sufism.Fauzan sa 29 Nov 2004, 09:56

Furthermore, al-Banna was not as much "sufi" as "salafi".

"Sanctioning"
This line, "An important aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is the sanctioning of Jihad such as the 2004 fatwa issued by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi making it a religious obligation of Muslims to abduct and kill USA citizens in Iraq," is unclear. To sanction can mean to condone/approve of, but it can also mean to penalize. In other words, it can have opposite meanings, so I would appreciate if someone clarified the intended meaning here. --137.165.195.172 15 Dec 2004, 19:53


 * That line is no longer in the article. --AI 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The conotation of the word sanction here is obvious. First of all, if the word sanction is used to mean penalize, it takes as a direct object a person or group of people which is not the case here. Second, the second segment of the sentence clearly explains the first by saying that YQ issued a fatwa making Jihad "a religious obligation."Supertouch (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Another line that pops up under sanctioning Violence "The Brotherhood currently advocates suicide bombing attacks on civilians to fight Zionism, and its Palestinian wing Hamas[35] targets both civilians and the military in Israel." The source apears to be an opinion peice and therefore should be stated as such --76.65.22.89 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Caliphate, democracy, and MB
Muslim Brotherhood does not categorically reject democracy. Its own website http://www.ikhwanweb.com/index.asp contains numerous statements in its favor and explicitly supports "democracy"--though it may be argued Islamist democracy.

Muslim Brotherhood doesn't call for a caliphate today. In fact, it participates in elections and encourges other Islamic parties to participate in elections. For example, Hamas which is the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood favors "elections" and "democracy."--71.105.254.69 (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hassan al-Banna called for a world caliphate, but it would be in stages. Jihad is an obligation on all Muslims: “All Muslims must make jihad –Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored or evaded.” (The Way of Jihad by Hassan al-Banna, Pg 2) The full and frank global Jihad however only comes into play once the MB has wrested state power from all rivals:  “It is Fard (obligatory) on us to fight with our enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar al-Harb (land of war) every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this” (The Way of Jihad by Hassan al-Banna, Pg 8, Prelude Ltd, 1997). We can also see how this works in practice, by examining the one MB group that has actually won power, the Hamas group in Gaza. Hamas favored elections when the elections favored them. Subsequently, there have been no elections in Gaza, and Fatah opponents have been thrown off roof-tops, burned alive, and silenced. There are no secularist or even more moderate opposition parties in Gaza. Those favoring negotiation and peace with Israel are simply killed as "collaborators." This may be taken as the MB "position" on democracy once it gets into power, its form of "Muslim democracy". The Muslim Brotherhood certainly rejects Western democracies, for several reasons. One is that it considers that Westerners are secular, and of course it rejects secularism. It also rejects genuine freedom of press, which necessarily licenses freedom to criticise and even to mock Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, and other topics beyond criticism in MB eyes. Another is that it rejects the idea that Western democracies really reflect the will of Western peoples: according to MB founders and leaders, and writings, Western democracies are secretly totally controlled by "the Jews" for sinister ends, including the oppression and overthrow of Islam and all good values. So Western democracy is only a seeming democracy and the MB utterly repudiates it and its structures and safeguards. From the French Enlightenment on, the Western understanding and structures of democracy are said to have been a phony veil for evil and the war on God. This is why The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a key text for them. Article 22 of the Hamas Charter states that Jewish "wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B'nai B'rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it." This non-Muslim world domination of liberal enlightenment values is what Muslim Jihad must fight, to free humanity from evil.  Thus the world caliphate must be reestablished; Hamas merely fights one crucial aspect of that larger Jihad.  Rather than debate with opponents of Islam, the goal of Jihad is to kill them and/or takeover and suppress them.  Such goals, contrary to early posters, are not democratic goals, and the ultimate aim is to wrest power over the entire world from "the Jews, Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the like."  This may seem like a strong POV.  However, the POV is that of MB and Hamas themselves.  The above merely points out official statements from MB sources and the actual historical record of MB organizations in power such as Hamas. These things cannot just be ignored as if they do not exist.122.107.224.148 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested History Section
This section could be titled: Alliance with Nazi Germany

Between 1932 and 1941, the German embassy in Iraq, headed by Dr. Fritz Groebe, successfully promoted Nazi antisemitism and fascism among Egypt’s Arabs. Intellectuals and army officers were invited to Germany as guests of the Nazi party. The German embassy purchased the newspaper "Al-alam Al-arabi" ("The Arab world") which published antisemite propaganda and a translation of Mein Kampf to Arabic. The German embassy also supported the establishment of Al-Fatwa, a youth organization based upon the model of the Hitler Youth.

Nazism held a genuine appeal for the Arab populace, who were attracted to its messages of resentment, Jew-hating, revenge, rejection of democracy, anti-communism, and recovery of past military glory. “ Hitler’s popularity in the Arab world was intense and immediate and (his) …cult of personality endures to this day. Pro-Nazi Egyptians even claimed to have ‘found’ the house where Hitler’s mother was alleged to have been born, in Tanta, Egypt. The site became a popular pilgrimage destination. A popular Arab song in the late 1930’s went, "In heaven, Allah, on earth, Hitler." (Bostom, Andrew, ed.. The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism:From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. Prometheus Books, 2008)

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, shared much of the same worldview as Nazism: parliamentary rule was to be replaced by the caliphate, interest and profit were to be replaced by state control of business and labor relations, the decadence of modern life was to be suppressed. The Brotherhood’s calls to jihad were not directed at the British, but almost exclusively against Jews. There is a direct “connection between early Islamism and late National Socialism during the 1930’s and 1940’s.” While their Jew-hatred ‘drew on early Islamic sources,” it was also inspired by Nazi influences.”

“The Muslim Brotherhood finds not just its roots, but much of its symbolism, terminology, and political priorities deep within the heart of Nazi fascism”. The Reich offered great power connections to the movement, but the relationship brokered by the Brotherhood was more than a marriage of convenience. long before the war, al-Banna had developed an Islamic religious ideology which previewed Hitler’s Nazism. Both movements sought world conquest and domination. Both were triumphalist and supremacist: in Nazism the Aryan must rule, while in al-Banna’s Islam, the muslim religion must hold dominion. Both advocated subordination of the individual to a folkish central power. Both were explicitly anti-nationalist in the sense that they believed in the liquidation of the nation-state in favor of a trans-national unifying community: in Islam the umma (community of all believers); and in Nazism the herrenvolk (master race). Both worshipped the unifying totalitarian figure of the caliph or führer. And both rabidly hated the Jews and sought their destruction. As the rotherhood’s political and military alliance with Nazi Germany developed, these parallels facilitated practical interactions. .

"A confluence of Nazi anti-Semitism and Muslim fundamentalism did take place during the war which was a mixture of ideological affinity and shared political interests." Herf, Jeffrey. The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust. Pp159,179,180,198, 248. Belknap Press, 2006, ISBN-10: 0674021754 Nazi Germany's propaganda outreach to the Arab world was designed by the German Foreign Office and broadcast over short-wave radio. Radio Zeseen, a short-wave station that operated from 1939 until 1945 and targeted illiterate Muslims through daily Arabic programs, the "Nazis' most important propaganda machine." After the station stopped broadcasting, "its frequencies of hate" continued to reverberate in the Arab world, (kuntzel)

"The Nazi hardliners saw an affinity between Nazi ideologies and that of a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam," A group of pro-Nazi Arab nationalists gave the regime a new asset: native Arabic speakers. "As they had in Europe, the Arabic-language broadcasts claimed the war was a Jewish war and that an Allied victory would mean Jewish domination of the Middle East." In 1942, one broadcast was titled, "Kill the Jew before they kill you." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726179253&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter; Herf, Jeffrey. The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust. Pp159,179,180,198, 248. Belknap Press, 2006, ISBN-10: 0674021754

The Egyptian Green shirts worked under Nazi direction doing espionage and sabotage in service of the Third Reich, sending information to Nazi General Rommel. They closely modeled themselves after the Nazi party using a variation of the sig heil salute, stormtroopers, torch-light processions, and terror campaigns against Egyptian opponents and Jews.”

Nazism was eradicated in europe after World War II, but it was alive and well in the Arab world. The new amalgam of Nazi and muslim Jew-hatred created by the preaching of Hassan al-Banna and Husseini continued to grow in influence. As it did, extremist intellectuals and Imams created a fascist form of Islam to justify their ideology. The chief architect of the new fanaticism was the supreme ideologue of the muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb. … Qutb declared in his seminal essay, “our struggle against the Jews,” it was crucial to understand that the Jew was the root of all the world’s evil. Picking up on the Nazi ideology he had ingested as a member of the Brotherhood, Qutb wrote that Jews were responsible for the world’s moral decay, and the West’s animalistic sexual depravity. It was the Jews who had created the anti-Islamic doctrines of atheistic materialism, godless socialism, and democratic individualism. The Jews, therefore, were the perpetual enemies of Islam. This essay, arguably the single most important manifesto of Islamic fascist anti-semitism in the modern world, was distributed in millions of copies throughout the Islamic world with the help of Wahabbist Islamic sect in saudi Arabia. When he returned to egypt in 1950, Qutb joined the muslim Brotherhood and became editor-in-chief of its weekly al-ikhwan al- Muslimin, and later head of its propaganda section. his popularity soon brought him to the highest levels of leadership in the Brotherhood. his writings gave philosophical stature to the Nazi goals of the muslim Brotherhood. As he saw it, the confrontation between the secular West and the muslim world was over Islam and nothing but Islam. The confrontation arose from the efforts by christians (referred to as “crusaders” in his works) and world Zionism to annihilate Islam. The motivation for this ideological war, Qutb asserted, was that the crusaders and Zionists knew that christianity and Judaism were inferior to Islam. They needed, therefore, to annihilate Islam in order to rescue their own flawed and failed doctrines from the inevitable victory of Islam over the hearts and minds of the entire world. After all, “Islam uber Alles” was an anthem decreed by Allah himself. It would happen, eventually. But first, Qutb said that the muslim Brotherhood must ‘open people’s eyes” to the danger that modernity and western culture and Judaism and Zionism posed to Islam. And chief among the most dangerous of perpetrators of that threat were the treasonous muslims who were corrupted by Western influences to the point where they could no longer be called muslims.

…. The consistent message throughout his life’s works can be described as an adaptation of fascism to Islamic society and governance: violent and uncompromising overthrow of secular insufficiently “pure” regimes; terrorism and armed revolution from the top down; imposition of his interpretation of Islam by force on all Arab peoples; and ultimately the entire world through jihad. his books, his place in the muslim Brotherhood, and his martyrdom as a muslim hero, have made sayyid Qutb the ideologue par excellence for every Islamofascist movement in the world today. his greatest impact has been through his influence on al-Qaeda. .

--Cimicifugia (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia


 * This has to be toned down and de-POVed if it's going to be added. If not you're going to have all sorts of Islamist editors tearing it apart. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Beroul has done a lot of research and can be congratulated on that. Nevertheless, there remain serious problems that have already been pointed out by many on this page.  He insisted at many points in this discussion page that he just wants to present a reliable, objective account based on solid research, by which he excludes journal articles (or maybe just articles by journalists - unclear!).  He has issued an invitation (as if it is his to give) for other contributions to the article based on solid academically respectable research.  I have provided that in my contribution relating to the serious issues of Nazi ties of the MB before and during WWII, and the strongly antisemitic programmatic outlook of the MB (and its chief leadership).  I also provide citations to some of the chief of these works in my paragraph, and will present them here as well.  The authors are all highly regarded experts, most are academics, from a wide range of countries and perspectives, and their books are published by recognized publishers of serious research, several of them being academic presses.  It may be taken as given, therefore, that the Nazi connection is proven, and the strongly antisemitic nature of the MB is as well.  Another area that needs more objective analysis (which I have not undertaken in this article, but see especially Karsh below just as a starter -- there is a lot more on this) is what might be called the Islamic Imperialism of the MB's program and goals.  Beroul has stated his antipathy to "imperialism," as leading to his respectful attitude to the MB "resistance" to Western "imperialism" and "colonialism,"  but he tends to soft-pedal if not to ignore this central ideological motivation of the MB itself.  This does not seem balanced nor objective, and needs redressing by some other contributor.  The Nazi link and Jew-hatred, by the way, relate to the wider MB imperialist understanding of Islam, so the themes are connected.  In any case, among the books that document the actual involvement of the founders of the MB, and their organization, specifically with the Nazis, we might include, among many possible titles, the following important studies (the German scholars named draw upon Nazi German archives; Herf and Johnson draw upon American and British government archives, pamphlets and other contemporary documents including interviews and personal accounts of contemporaries; Karsh draws both on various state archival and other historical sources):
 * Klaus Gensicke, Der Mufti von Jerusalem und die Nationalsocialisten: Eine politische Biographie Amin el-Husseinis (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007)
 * Jeffrey Herf, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2009)
 * Ian Johnson, A Mosque in Munich: Nazis, the CIA and Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010)
 * Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010)
 * Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History. Updated Edition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007)
 * Matthias Küntzel, Jihad and Jew-hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (New York: Telos Press, 2007)
 * Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, Halbmond und Hakenkreuz: Das 'Dritte Reich', die Araber und Palästina (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006)
 * Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Martin Cüppers, and Krista Smith, Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews of Palestine (New York: Enigma Books, 2010)
 * In fairness to Beroul, these books were not published when he seems to have composed his articles on the Muslim Brotherhood, that is, in 2005. However, the very journal articles he scorned already pointed to such matters, including learned articles in scholarly journals.  In any case, it is clear that his version of the Muslim Brotherhood and its activities needs updating.122.107.224.148 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

terrorist
We have a sentence that reads "n November 2008 the Holy Land Foundation was found guilty of illegally funding Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which is designated by the United States as a terrorist group." We are saying, in WP's narrative NPOV voice, that Hamas is a terrorist group, and then saying that the US designates Hamas as a terrorist group. We dont define Hamas as a terrorist group in the Hamas article. The revert is based on the idea that the group is "designated" as a terrorist group, and the sentence says that. We dont however use the views of 6 states that designate Hamas as a terrorist group (2 of which dont even designate Hamas that, but rather only the militant wing is designated as such) and pretend that is acceptable to say in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Epeefleche, explain your illogical revert.  nableezy  - 19:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian people in the Muslim Brotherhood ?
A friend of mine living in Egypt told me that there are a few christian members of the MB. Does anyone have heard about that ? thanks in advance Stanjourdan (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is possible if the Muslim Brotherhood applies a definition of who Allah has chosen to rule the world. According to the Koran, Allah has chosen the tribe of Abraham to rule the nations. The tribe of Abraham will include Jews and some Christians. It will however, not include "the tribe of Moses" unless they are also among the tribe of Abraham.


 * [3.33] Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations.


 * [22.78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!


 * Sources: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=3.33&size=First+100 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=22.78&size=First+100
 * St.Trond (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this insight :) Stanjourdan (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

umm -- more about Egyptian protests?
Right off the bat, the only thing I see about the relevance of the Muslim Brotherhood with regard to the Egyptian (and other Arab world) protests, is the one sentence in the intro: "As of 2011, the Brotherhood took an active part in the Egyptian protests." And a link to the main page about the protests at the end. Needless to say, the current protests are very relevant to Muslim Brotherhood and vice versa. The article could use a detailed message about the how discontent towards Mubarak has been in part fueled by the historical exclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood from politics by the Mubarak government; also a mention about how the possible ascent of the Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere has been mentioned often with great paranoia, if you will, by US press/government since the protests started; a mention about realistically how much of a popular force they represent in Egypt right now, which is a topic of contentious debate (various mentions in US press of their influence range from being "the most significant opposition group in Egypt" to "only having about 800,000 loyal followers in a country of 80 million" (the last quote is paraphrased from a NYT op/ed, which I happen to find inaccurate since they won 25% of parliamentary seats in 2005, not 1% as the op/ed would imply)).173.3.41.6 (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

banned
There is no list of countries where MB is banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

lol banned. like you would ever really know. they're banned in Egypt but getting overthrown, or at least the current one running the country.Tranced not torn (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

does anyone here read Arabic, do you know what is on their 'emblem'?? "and prepare" the rest of that verse is "what you can of force of horses...." that means fight the infield, who in their right mind has any doubt who these people are??? they are the back bone of Al-Qaida (knowing that the US administration tends to get its info from Wikipeida, I thought it is important that this page is updated) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.114.53 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Ayman al-Zawahiri joining Muslim Brotherhood
This article does not mention that one of the world's most notorious terrorists, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood from the age of 14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandab00 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Provide evidence, sourced to reliable sources. And stop blanking sourced information.   Corvus cornix  talk  00:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

WSJ article on the Muslim Brotherhood
A rather useful overview of the current situation. Cs32en  Talk to me  04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Recently added quotation
The quotation from Jihad is the way by Mustafa Mashhur, recently added to the Motives section, should go elsewhere. The Motives section is about criticisms of their motives. Unfortunately I'm not expert enough to know whether it should be moved to the Beliefs section or to the more local In Egypt section, or even whether it is authoritative enough to be included at all. Please could someone with this knowledge help?

By the way, please note that MOS stipulates that quotations should not be in italics. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Lacking any comments up till now, I've removed it, as it was clearly misplaced in the Criticisms section and was interfering with the readability of that section. If anyone wants to retrieve it and do something with it, it can be found in any version of the page from 14th Feb till now. --Stfg (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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? 24.23.137.188 02:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

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 doesn't point to similarities between the Fascist thought and the thought and actions of the movement.

This article suffers from a strong bias towards 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 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 2004Please 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)

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 According to the Quran, Muslims are descendants of Abraham, "their father"  and this is what makes them brothers. According to the same Quran, they have been chosen by Allah to govern the nations. 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)

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. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Rtnews template
I've removed the Russia today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap  ☏  02:14, 20 April 2012 (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.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/arab-spring-run-amok-brotherhood-starts-crucifixions/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.78.141 (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC) 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)

Poor Quality
This article strikes me as being of profoundly poor quality, which may have been more acceptable a few years ago but is more of an embarrassment for Wikipedia given the significance and relevance of the Muslim Brotherhood in current events, especially regarding Egypt. Parts of it read like anti-Muslim conspiracy garbage, while others are clearly self-flattering entries added by Muslim Brotherhood supporters. While a good portion of this article manages to remain fairly neutral, it is nonetheless far from being unbiased and I would suggest that the neutrality of this article be disputed and that more effort is made to filter out entries with unreliable or poor quality sources. Until then, this article is practically unreadable for anyone trying to grasp more then the basics of the Muslim Brotherhood as you can't be sure what exactly reflects reality in this article. 207.35.13.236 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this article is a complete mess. Given the importance of Muslim Brotherhood related movements to events in and around the Middle East, there needs to be some major improvements. Although the MB is not structured as a formal Political International and doesn't have an official list of member parties to my knowledge, pages like Socialist International and Liberal International might offer a more coherent way of structuring the page. Pmolloy291 (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Fascism" back-and-forth
At least one anonymous user really wants "fascist" up in the lead. I complained that this word was dropped in without any elaboration later in the article, and removed it. It was re-insterted, saying that if I wanted to elaborate I was free to do so, but the adjective was duly supported by references. I was also linked to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as if that were somehow relevant.

The following refs are what are being held out to support the unelaborated inclusion of fascism as part of their ideology, and the claim that the MB was founded as a fascist organisation:
 * Terrorism in America By Kevin Borgeson, Robin Valeri
 * The Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian State in the Balance of Democracy
 * Islamic Terrorism's Links To Nazi Fascism
 * Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is not to be trusted

One non-notable book and three editorials. It may justify some sort of Wikipedia fudge like "so-and-so accuses them of having had links to fascism" but certainly not a bare adjective, and in any case it is for you to explain this, not for me to try to explain your point for you!

Cheers --another anonymous user 174.118.1.24 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

--173.8.170.41 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)--173.8.170.41 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)== New material in "Founding" ==

Someone just added almost 8,000 characters to the "Founding" section of "Egypt". None of it is sourced, except for the (wrongly-formatted) mention of one book. This is not acceptable. Someone needs to put citations and references in soon, or this bit will come down. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have taken down the material referenced, since it was not sourced. If anyone has a problem with this, let's talk about it here. I took the wrongly-formatted "footnote" out of the Footnotes section, in addition to all the material in the main article, but I kept the book mentioned in the References section, since there are also other books in the References section that are not mentioned in the main article. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you guys f-ing serious? They are straight up a state supported extremist terrorist group. They are officially considered a terrorist group by multiple countries


 * The Muslim Brotherhood's acknowledged and suspected links to terrorism are already addressed in the article. The discussion here is about credible evidence of a fascist history of the Brotherhood. We have not seen any so far. Further, I recommend the deletion of footnotes 5 and 6. They are both editorials (i.e., NOT sources), 6 is not sourced at all, and 5 is poorly sourced. When I say it is poorly sourced, I mean that the references are not fully annotated so it is hard to know what you're looking for, and the ones that you can find engage in a lot of circular referencing. Ultimately, one is led back to other editorials, for instance something written by Matthias Küntzel, which is hosted on his own web page. These kinds of things are NOT sources for an encyclopedia. I will take these two footnotes down soon, unless someone can provide a compelling reason not to. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

TERRORIST
Should be the first word in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. But you know, this is Wikipedia, be bold and make edits yourself!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.9.65 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine
I changed the section title to "Israel and Palestinian Territories". There has been some back and forth with this title. The events described in the section happen(ed) in both Israel and the territories, so I think this is appropriate, rather than just referring to Israel. According to the United Nations, the territories are actually called the "Occupied Palestinian Territories"

http://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/menaregion/pages/psindex.aspx

so I think the label "Palestinian Territories" is rather conservative. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

New material in "Founding"
The new quotation in this section comes from self-published, POV material, and all the references within the document are also self-published POV material, none of it peer-reviewed, etc. I can't paste the link to it here because it is on WP's blacklist, but if you google the title you can find it. I recommend taking this material down immediately. What do other people think? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm going to take down the referenced material for the cited reasons. If anyone wants to talk about it, please post here. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any unsourced material of this nature should be taken down immediately; there is no need for hesitation unless the material is sourced. Thank you for the reasoned response. --عبد المؤمن (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Question
Why under "See Also" is there a link to Pacifism in Islam. It says in the opening paragraph of this article that the Muslim Brotherhood has assassinated political opponents and claims to have created Hamas. That doesn't sound like pacifism, I know there's also a link to Islamic Terrorism but it seems contradictory and I'm genuinely confused. Evil Deathcat (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Evil Deathcat

Pronunciation transcription in infobox
"Ikḫwān" seems to be a strange hybrid between "Ikhwān" and "Iḫwān", and should be changed... AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood banned by Egyptian court
Court rules that Islamist party's assets should be confiscated as crackdown on supporters of Mohamed Morsi escalates http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/muslim-brotherhood-egyptian-court 79.251.82.231 (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Motto الإسلام هو الحل
Why is there nothing about their most famous motto? -- الإسلام هو الحل ... AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In addition to which I think it's worthwhile to explain what the word on the green logo is (وَأَعِدُّواْ). It's a Quranic quotation, its grammar and context explained fully at the excellent quran.com site (here). --Dupes (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> Saudi lists Brotherhood as 'terrorist' group(Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)).

Conspiracy theories wikilink
I removed what I believe to be an irrelevant link (Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories) from the article; another editor put it back. The conspiracy theories have no basis in fact, so there shouldn't be a link to the article on this page.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Either Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories should be deleted or it should have a link from this article. If Muslim Brotherhood isn't relevant to conspiracy theories about it, what is? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

motto section
Was going to restore the motto deleted by David O. Johnson. ( "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”)

Looking for a source I found over a dozen very non-scholarly books (some including some of those rightwing "political entertainment" books). But did finally find what looks like a credible source. The Brotherhood does loom large in the imagination of the American (and other countries) rightwing, but I don't think that is a reason to exclude information from the article.

Here is my result. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is known to be opposed to Islam, so that may not be the most reliable source.David O. Johnson (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ideology
The ideology for the group is listed as Islam, however that would be akin to stating an ideology as Christian - its not specific or narrowed down enough, first off what form, is it Sunni, or Shia, or some form of Ibadi or lesser known form of Islam. Secondly what school of ideas or what form of interpretation does it most closely represent, i.e. Saudi Arabia being a Salafist interpretation. Simply stating Islam is not much of a description in terms of Ideology 70.69.172.92 (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Mistake?
First paragraph: "In 2012, it became the first democratically elected political party in Egypt, but it is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of [...] Egypt..." Sorry, I'm not very well educated so maybe I'm missing something here but how did they get "democratically elected" in Egypt while being considered a terrorist organization? 94.2.226.27 (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they were democratically elected as a political party and there wasn't any terrorism etc. going on except the ISIS linked groups in Sinai, but after the military Coup and new election, they have been re-branded terrorists, if you ask me its what always happens in the middle east, the military gets resented for torturing on behalf of a dictator than they overthrow somebody to regain support. Net result = dictatorship. I guess we can wait and see if this will turn out another dictator or if democratic elections take place once more, but technically it was democratically elected until the coup branded it terrorist, and this current gov is democratic until they rig elections etc. I guess and turn it back to a dictatorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.168.225 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمين‎), shortened to the Muslim Brotherhood (الإخوان المسلمون al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn), is a transnational Islamist organization founded in Egypt by Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna in 1928.[1][2][3][4] The organisation gained supporters throughout the Arab world and influenced other Islamist groups with its "model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work",[5] and in 2012 sponsored the first democratically elected political party in Egypt. However, it suffered from periodic government crackdowns for alleged terrorist activities, and as of 2015 is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of Bahrain,[6][7] Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.[8][9][10][11]

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state."[12] Its mottos include "Believers are but Brothers", "Islam is the Solution", and "Allah is our objective; the Qur'an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish."[13][14][15] It is financed by members, who are required to allocate a portion of their income to the movement,[16] and was for many years financed by Saudi Arabia, with whom it shared some enemies and some points of doctrine.[16][17]

As a Pan-Islamic, religious, and social movement, it preached Islam, taught the illiterate, set up hospitals and business enterprises. The group spread to other Muslim countries but has its largest, or one of its largest, organizations in Egypt despite a succession of government crackdowns in 1948,[18][19] 1954,[20] 1965, and 2013 after plots, or alleged plots, of assassination and overthrow were uncovered.[21][22][23] Over the years it also developed branches in other Muslim countries.

The Arab Spring brought it legalisation and substantial political power at first, but as of 2013 it has suffered severe reversals.[24] The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was legalized in 2011 and won several elections,[25] including the 2012 presidential election when its candidate Mohamed Morsi became Egypt's first democratically elected president. One year later, however, following massive demonstrations, Morsi was overthrown by the military and arrested. As of 2014, the organization has been declared a terrorist group both in Egypt and by its erstwhile ally Saudi Arabia, and is once again suffering a severe crackdown in Egypt[8][26] as well as pressure in other Arab countries.[27] The Brotherhood itself insists it is a peaceful, democratic organization,[28][29] and its leader "condemns violence and violent acts".[30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.15.31 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 one external links on Muslim Brotherhood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150120115441/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20030175-503543.html to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20030175-503543.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150526122742/http://time.com/3881620/mohammed-morsi-death-sentence to http://time.com/3881620/mohammed-morsi-death-sentence/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150111150329/http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/02/01/the-iranian-revolution-echoes-in-egypt/ to http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/02/01/the-iranian-revolution-echoes-in-egypt/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130718095523/http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2009/03 to http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2009/03
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110201204629/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/world/middle-east/Jordans-opposition-Arabs-will-topple-tyrants/articleshow/7385868.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Jordans-opposition-Arabs-will-topple-tyrants/articleshow/7385868.cms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150505212829/http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=7553 to http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=7553
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150505205835/http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=9403 to http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=9403
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150604010607/http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judges/hlf2/09-25-08/Elbarasse%20Search%203.pdf to http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judges/hlf2/09-25-08/Elbarasse%20Search%203.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100305065030/http://www.nefafoundation.org:80/hlfdocs.html to http://www.nefafoundation.org/hlfdocs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120428182928/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2012/04/23/think_again_al_qaeda?page=0,4 to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/think_again_al_qaeda?page=0,4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120921064317/http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27519 to http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27519
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150429225111/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9248/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/9248/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110501171628/http://www.ataturksociety.org:80/letters/tarhan.html to http://www.ataturksociety.org/letters/tarhan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)