Muslim Brotherhood Quotes
It is amazing what explanations religious and biased fanatics can come up with to explain history.
The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood had won the first democratic election, but they proceeded to use their majority to deny rights to others. Massive demonstrations against the government, with the Egyptian military support deposed the Brotherhood President and government. The Brotherhood then took to the streets, demonstrating against the ousting of their elected government. After more than a week of constant demonstrations and the blockage of many streets, the new military appointed government authorized the police to clear the streets. Some of the Brotherhood were armed and killed over 40 police and several hundred demonstrators were also killed with each side blaming the other for “starting” the violence. The vice president was a strong opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood and supported and called for the ousting of their undemocratic, albeit elected, government. However he also supported their right to protest in the streets and condemned the use of force.
_0_thumbnail_47x47.jpg){kind=small}
This was a classic criticism of Barack Obama—namely that he was an intellectual who could only communicate in a rational, academic, unemotional style and was reluctant to express outrage and publicly chastise other parties or counties.
The Muslim Brotherhood Government had just been deposed by a popular coup d’etat carried out by the Egyptian military. The Brotherhood flooded into the streets to protest the coup and some of them attacked police with weapons. The military overreacted and in an effort to clear the demonstrators from the streets killed hundreds of them. This brought out signs like this.
In a replay of McCarthyism paranoia Bachman and 5 of her more paranoid fellows in Congress accused a number of fine American officials who were Muslims of being agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical terrorist group in some countries and an extreme Islamic political party in others. The accusers, following the classic pattern, provide no credible proof and immediately publicly publish their accusations. Since members of Congress cannot be held to account for anything that they claim, no matter how false or malicious, the accused have no real forum to defend themselves.
On the surface, this reform seems to contradict Sharia – Islamic religious law -- where religion permeates all of politics.
From the latter part of the 20th century onward, religious nationalism was no longer a force for most religions and nations except Muslim countries. It was the only religion left where a large proportion of the adherents saw no distinction between the religion and the government. Nations that had separation of church and state were not conducive to the extreme fundamentalist form of Islam where the Secular Leader and the Religious leader was to be embodied as a single person. As a result Islamic religious nationalists argued for a Theocracy and at times fought for it with violent means. The secular government typically, to curtail the violence and prevent a religious takeover, often outlawed the extreme religious Islamic parties. While Aslan cites the Muslim Brotherhood failure in Egypt as a desirable outcome, the only way the other forces of Egyptian society could prevent the Islamists from taking over turning the country into a theocracy was to forcefully repress the extremists. The Turkish outcome was much better, but there was the threat of repression of the Justice and Development Party when it won a majority control of the government. There were explicit threats that if it tried to weaken the secular nature of the government as Ataturk had formulated it, the military would come “out of the barracks” and oust the government as they had done before. There were nations like China which persecuted religions such as certain forms of Christianity, but those religions were not fighting for religious nationalism. They only wished the freedom to practice their religion and had no program or theology that argued for Christianizing the government. The Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka did not want a Hindu government and were perfectly free to practice their religion. The problem was that they felt that there was systemic social and economic discrimination against the Tamils and they fought for independence—not of a Hindu state, but of a secular, nondiscriminatory state of equal opportunity.
