ippr have today published a report (pdf) marking the culmination of their two-year research project “on political Islam in the Middle East and North Africa”. It is not impressive.
There are two main problems with this report and, unfortunately for ippr, they are the two main assumptions underpinning it. Firstly, that engagement is always good and must occur with Islamists rather than anybody else (p16 and pp41-42). Secondly, that those poor little political Islamists are simply “misunderstood” and if only we understood them better (like wot ippr do) then everything would be AOK (p41 and p45).
Sorry, but engagement for the sake of engagement is not an argument. The onus is on ippr to argue why political Islamists should be engaged and particularly why they should be engaged ahead of anybody else. Secondly, it is not other people “misunderstanding” Islamism that makes them wary of engagement with Islamists – quite the opposite. A mere faint familiarity with the principal Islamist ideologues is enough to make you very wary of engaging them and their followers.
ippr admit, in passing, that many Islamists are not very pleasant, that the Muslim Brotherhood have been involved in assassinations, bombings and the like (p13) and retain unpleasant ideas about the role of women and religious minorities in society (p15). All of which might make you think that the Muslim Brotherhood are not particularly plausible partners for encouraging positive developments on human rights and democratisation in the MENA area. Not so for ippr, however.
They remind us that the political Islamists are “[o]ccupying a middle ground between authoritarian regimes and violent jihadists” (p40) and that they will have a greater influence on the future political evolution of the Middle East than the jihadists (p8). Well that’s very nice, just not a logical argument. There are more groups out there than “authoritarian regimes”, “violent jihadists” and “political Islamists”. Why don’t they get a look in?
We are told not to ignore “the fact that across the Middle East and North Africa, Islamist parties are frequently more vocal in their support for democracy than their secular counterparts” (p41). So what? They’re only advocating democracy because they see it as a means to an end – power. Anyway, that is an argument not to engage with those (unnamed) secular groups, not an argument to engage with Islamists. You are left wondering what Islamists would have to do to convince ippr not to engage with them. Advocating violence would not be enough (p43) and the Muslim Brotherhood’s moves away from liberalisation are actually taken as an argument for engaging with them (p41).
So what kind of engagement are ippr advocating with these people they have so singularly failed to make the case for engaging? There is a good clue on page thirteen.
Changes to Egypt’s constitution that have made the Shari’a the ‘main source’ of legislation have enabled [emphasis added] the Brotherhood to retract its claim that the Egyptian government is apostate.
According to ippr, it was the Egyptian government’s fault for being secular that the Muslim Brotherhood had to use violence against it. Some might call it engagement despite the fact that, to begin, Egypt was requird to give up the most fundamental aspect of its previously secular nature. Others, more accurately perhaps, would call it capitulation.
Despite its plea that readers not misinterpret the project “as implicit support for [Islamists'] political agendas” (p6), ippr here has made a virtue of acceding to Islamist demands. The same is seen on page fifteen.
Unfortunately, [the Brotherhood's release of a draft policy platform] did not generate the wider policy debate that the Brotherhood had hoped for. Instead, it prompted a re-emergence of concerns about the Brotherhood’s stance on equalities and human rights, particularly as a result of the document’s assertion that non-Muslims and women should not be allowed to hold senior leadership roles within the state.
Why would it be “unfortunate” unless you are allying yourself with the Muslim Brotherhood rather than the non-Muslims and women whom the draft policy would have discriminated against?
What is ippr up to? Rather than chosing partners on the basis of genuine shared values, ippr seem to have chosen to make common cause with the Muslim Brotherhood simply because they are Islamists. Instead of pretending that the Brotherhood are moderate progressives, why not ally with groups that actually are?
33 Comments
Well said Mr Yossarian .
These bums at IPPR need to realise that they can’t get away with this bullcrap any more. The people just won’t stand for horseshit.
“Two years reseach”! And in all that time, these clowns have failed to find out what’s going on in the Middle East or even to muster any real arguments. And what exactly was the point in even doing field research when you knew before you started what conclusions you want to come to?
A diabolic waste of taxpayers’ money.
Henry
Dr H. Kissinger
The Pentagon
Washington D.C.
this whole approach is so insulting to Muslims. Ordinary secular democratic Muslims do exist, why not engage with them instead of Islamist. Why have such low expectations for Muslims. Such a patronising and colonial attitude. This is not the British Raj IPPR.
Where do these clowns have their offices anyways?
I’m mighty tempted to put in a call to Langley, whistle up some B-52s and put and end to their sick game in one stroke.
It’ll be just like the good old days in ‘Nam.
Henry
Excellent comments, Abu Wannabe Arab. I completely agree with you.
Why would it be “unfortunate” unless you are allying yourself with the Muslim Brotherhood rather than the non-Muslims and women whom the draft policy would have discriminated against?
They’ve completely let the cat out of the bag as to where their support for Islamists really lies. Why pretend otherwise?
Needless to say, the Ikhwaani drones at iengage are wetting their pants in glee about this report. At last an agency who supports their cause!
Epic fail.
My argument is against the oversimplification of the relations of rule and thus power in the Arab world. The relationship between oppressive regimes and supposedly dissident Islamists is not uniform in the Arab world. In Sudan, for example, a range of relations exists between Islamism and the state (from the tacit support for HT which leads to it having an enormous HQ in Khartoum, to the explicit support given the regime by elements present and former of al-Ikhwaan and similar groups, to the covert support, succour and manipulation as deniable agencies of violent jihadi groups by the state).
Grasping what was (and remains) at stake in the history and in the present-day life of Muslim-majority countries is actually vital in appreciating the polemics generated by Islamists of the order of al-Ikhwaan and others.
It is all too easy to sit and judge from afar that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”, regarding every anti-Western commentary as containing some sort of direct progressive content, when, in point of fact, the very adage of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” is exactly the fatal poison that has affected the Arab world’s politics (in particular) for far too long.
Islamism is in toto and uniformly a reactionary and vile corruption of both Islam and an opportunist hijacking of a genuine desire for political change in the region. This by groups who demonstrably care not a fig for either the Arab Street, nor its future – but care only for the aggrandisement of their own political status and finally their own seizure of the reins of state and power. The notion that there is “good” Islamism and “bad” Islamism speaks volumes for the ignorance of real conditions in the Arab world on the part of IPPR and fellow-travellers in the West.
Consequently, the epitome of genuine progressive sentiment is not summed up in a gross simplification of the real historical or present character of politics in the Middle East, nor in the assumption that any critique of the West emanating from any source is ipso facto “progressive” or at least anti-extremist.
The enemies of the struggle for democracy in the Arab world are both within and without, both local and from afar. Knowing thy enemy – in all its malevolent complexities – is actually the key to progress. Certainly not gross simplifications and brushes so broad that injustice is done to the very peoples with which one claims to have some sympathy.
As always, your amateurish analysis knows no bounds. This is an excellent report, very well researched and from a credible organisation unlike that of your ideological masters, the failed Quilliam Foundation.
There are clear errors in your interpretation of the report:
“Firstly, that engagement is always good and must occur with Islamists rather than anybody else (p16 and pp41-42).”
The report does not state that at all. On the contrary, if you actually read the pages you quote, you will find that it describes the mentioned groups as pragmatists who, for (one of many) example, have:
“demonstrated their willingness to share political power by entering into alliances with other often secular opposition groups in an effort to achieve their goals. Western policymakers should take this kind of political behaviour into account as they decide which Islamist groups they feel able to engage with.”(p 41)
“Secondly, that those poor little political Islamists are simply “misunderstood” and if only we understood them better”
Again, a totally out of context and incorrect interpretation, further underpinning the shallow level of your analysis that any GCSE student could correct.
They are not misunderstood at all:
On the very same page and quote, which you later actually quote, it clearly states:
“But they should be careful not to assume that Islamists are simply biding their time until they are in a position to establish a system of one-party rule. This ignores the fact that across the Middle East and North Africa, Islamist parties are frequently more vocal in their support for democracy than their secular counterparts.”
To this you say:
“So what? They’re only advocating democracy because they see it as a means to an end – power”
This rhetorical response is either very naïve or an implied conclusion of a mind living in cloud cookoo land.
All mainstream political parties, in this context, seek power through elections to implement their policies over society in accordance to their doctrine. Can you give an example of one mainstream party that does not?
You ask a question which has been answered explicitly and implicitly in the report:
“The onus is on ippr to argue why political Islamists should be engaged and particularly why they should be engaged ahead of anybody else.”
The report states on Page 6 explicitly:
“Policymakers must face up to the difficult reality that in order for progress to be made towards democratisation in the Middle East and North Africa, there will have to be dialogue with some of the existing mainstream Islamist movements there.”
And then gives implicit evidence for the *mainstream* nature of these movements from pages 12-25.
This clearly demonstrates your selective reading of the report to fit your own twisted conclusions. The Islamic organizations in the mentioned countries are far more mainstream than any secular organization you purport. Once you actually understand the reports argument, the onus is on you to show how the secular parties are more mainstream in the country’s mentioned. I, personally, am not saying the criteria for engagement should be the mainstream nature of a group, but the report clearly states this, yet you deliberately chose to miss it out. For an armchair wanabe analyst, with friends all too keen to pat him on the back, it is all too easy to make idiotic statements without realizing.
You say,
“According to ippr, it was the Egyptian government’s fault for being secular that the Muslim Brotherhood had to use violence against it.”
Yet again, an erroneous misrepresentation of what has been written. This is the nature of this website. They misquote, misinterpret and pat themselves on the back for doing so.
You deliberately failed to mention the point before the paragraph you quoted:
“Since the 1970s, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken pains to distance itself from Qutb’s writings on the use of violence and has transformed itself into a more pragmatic political
force..”
Your concluding paragraph sums up your shallow analysis:
“Rather than chosing partners on the basis of genuine shared values, ippr seem to have chosen to make common cause with the Muslim Brotherhood simply because they are Islamists. Instead of pretending that the Brotherhood are moderate progressives, why not ally with groups that actually are?”
As mentioned before, the IPPR have intelligently, using empirical observations, concluded that western nations should engage mainstream Islamic organizations. This is in line with the reality on the ground of these country’s as clearly highlighted in the report.
It is easy for you and your buddy’s to sit here or there, cowering behind pseudonyms or intellectual dishonesty (Faisal) to make ill-informed conclusions about a report which has been thoroughly researched by credible people.
Shame on you.
Well, if Abdul Rehman is unwilling to accept the word of those who “cower behind pseudonyms” perhaps he might take notice of an Egyptian (Magdi Khalid) on the subject of the democratic credentials of the Muslim Brotherhood (and, by extension, Islamists in general). I apologise for the length of this quotation, but I think it most apposite in the context:
Magdi Khalid, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and political power: would democracy survive?, Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 10, No. 1 (March 2006)
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2006/issue1/Khalil.pdf
Whoops, that should be Magdi Khalil – not as I lazily had it, “Khalid”.
D’oh.
A section of Left, out of power in the US, spent the best part of the period of Republican rule becoming increasingly out of touch and conspiricist. However, that is as nothing compared to the utter lunacy of the US Right, out of power. It has become an utter caricature of the worst of the Right, delivering up a cocktail of vicious preoccupations, some of which promote and play upon racist fears.
For those of us who lived through the long years of Labour’s last twilight zone, during the Thatcher-Major years, the thought of the mainstream Left falling prey to the mad again is a depressing thought. But this IPPR report – and the response above by one of its authors – shows quite how bad it is going to be this time.
In the 80s, it was unilateral nuclear disarmament and ‘d’ya think that the Russians want war?’. The result of that was that Labour was out of power for almost two decades. The public, very sensibly, would not vote for us.
If the IPPR report is anything to go by, we’re headed right back there again.
Thanks for posting that quote Abu Faris. It was quite long but well worth reading!
Abdul Rehman,
Your post is too nonsensical to be worth fisking in its entirety.
However, I do wish to pick up on one of the most blatant contradictions in your post – regarding Yossarian’s assertion that Islamists are “only advocating democracy because they see it as a means to an end – power”
You respond to this by saying angrily that that:
“This rhetorical response is either very naïve or an implied conclusion of a mind living in cloud cookoo land.”
But then you yourself say:
“All mainstream political parties, in this context, seek power through elections to implement their policies over society in accordance to their doctrine. Can you give an example of one mainstream party that does not?”
So having attacked Yossarian for saying that Islamist might be conceivably lying in order to achieve power, you yourself then admit that this is probably indeed the case.
Good work dude.
Abdul Rehman.
The fact that Islamists are often opportunists is not a reason to engage with them. What must come first is an understanding of how engagement will protect key liberal democratic (and secular) values whilst keeping an eye on what we engagement would hope to achieve. ippr doesn’t even go into any detail about what engagement would entail and what its goals would be. Before I go to the shops I want to have a reason for going – before we engage with the Muslim Brotherhood ahead of other groups we’re going to need a good reason for doing so, not simply that they are pragmatic.
Well, you appear to agree with ippr’s arrogant assumption that they are the only ones to understand the nature of political Islamism. The rest of us will, on the back of the embarassing fact that this report took them two years (and god knows how much money) to produce, suggest that ippr are the ones who are doing the misunderstanding.
No. In this country the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour do not see democracy as a means to their coming to power, they see it as an ideal (even if Westminster democracy does not always live up to that ideal) which must be defended. The Muslim Brotherhood see democracy as a way of gaining power at the expense of Mubarak’s regime and have no serious commitment to democratic values. The only argument ippr can produce to argue that Islamists can be democrats is the example of Turkey which (a) is only one example and even ippr admit you should be careful deriving conclusions from a single example and (b) is entirely unrepresentative of other countries in the MENA area because of its unique history.
This is not an argument, it is an assertion. For it to be an argument there would need to be evidence adduced and logic employed. As I said, the onus is on ippr to prove there is merit in engaging with Islamists – simply saying we must do so is completely inadequate.
Thank you for so succinctly summarising one of the main flaws with which this report is riven. The report argues that we should deal with these groups because they have a degree of popular support. The report also criticises western governments for the way in which they have engaged with MENA regimes without requiring liberalisation of their politics. Yet ippr then want us to engage with one section of the opposition in those countries despite the fact that they have no commitment to liberalisation except in a self-serving short-termist manner. Why? If we are serious about liberalising political life in the MENA region and supporting the rights of inhabitants of it then engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, which thinks that ethnic minorities and women should not be allowed important positions of power, is a very bad idea.
This is hilarious. ippr pat the Egyptian government on the back for abandoning a fundamental precept of secular governance because it allowed the Muslim Brotherhood not be as antagonistic towards it. This just shows the hollowness of the Muslim Brotherhood’s commitment to non-violence. Non-violence will only be their policy so long as the Egyptian government capitulates on certain key points. This is not engagement and it has nothing to do with the quotation you use to attempt to refute my argument.
Incidentally, what is it about the people who researched the report that makes them “credible”? Is it, as I suspect, simply that they agree with you?
A.R. – the ippr report is concerned with Western interests in the region and this discussion is about what is best for Western powers and ordinary citizens of the Arab world. Since when did HT give a crap about Western interests or ordinary Arab citizens. You guys want to take over the world through force and enforce shariah on everyone against their will. So you even commenting on such a discussion is futile and only exposing the Machivelian nature of Islamist politics.
” Is it, as I suspect, simply that they agree with you?”
Or, alternatively, are you.
The usual nonsensical arrogant rant from our resident HT fanatic. Just a tip A.R. just by writing long winded posts that claim that everything is out of context, misunderstood, metaphorical or whatever else does not mean that you are right or even have a point. Its quality not quantity, and you seriously lack quality because you are trained by HT muppets who don;t know their arse from their elbow because they are all IT, Engineering or Medical students who haven’t got a clue about politics/theology and don’t have the necessary tools to approach such subjects. So stick to adding up numbers and working through formula’s and leave the tricky politics/theology to those who know.
Oh what a suprise. An article by a zionist attacking groups who oppose Israel !!
The UK governemnt engages with unsavoury regimes in India and Israel which contain Hindu and Jewish fasists and indulge in terrorism, assasionations and genocides. So why shouldnt it engage with Islamic groups?
Indeed the MB have never invaded others lands thousands of miles as the UK has done in Iraq so the question is why Islamic groups should engage with the UK.
Abu Wanabe Arab (aka racist)
You and the author of the piece ignore WHY the UK govt would want to engage with Islamic groups- its because they are popular. Were there to be free and fair elections in Arab countries they would win in many of them. Your fingers in the ear approach in absurd and unrealistic and driven by your ideaology.
The notion that the majority of Egyptians oppose sharia being the main source of legislation as Yossarian implies is absurd. Why would the government have acceded to these demands if they werent popular?
This ignores the fact that Islamic based parties in places like Turkey have give more freedoms than any parties before them. Even the government in Iran has given Iranians more choice than theyve had before under secularism.
This section shows the author up- he admits that Islamic parties advocate democracy -but doesnt explain what there interest in doing so would be (if as he believes political Islam and democracy arent compatible). Its because they are popular and would win power. So if they are popular ie reprent the people why on earth wouldnt the UK govt engage in them. Rather than with a bunch of zionist secularists and irreligious/apostate Muslims who represent only themselves and say what the zionist lobby wants them to.
The author mentions places where the MB allegedly refused to give up idealogical positions- if they are so idealogicallly driven then why would they advocate democracy except that they believe it doesnt conflict with their beliefs?
Indeed Yousef Qardawi has explicitly spoken in favour of democracy.
Abu Wannabe Arab
Someone who doesnt even know its haram to be racist really isnt in a position to lecture others on theology. Some of HTs theology is dodgy but from a classical orthodox Islamic position they are far closer to the truth than those who advocate complete secularism as Spitton do
Muslim,
This is a thread about the ignorant and absurd positions of the IPPR’s report. It is not a thread about HT.
It is, however, enlightening to learn that in your opinion that HT, an organisation that is fundamentally hostile to democracy, is putatively “closer” to a supposedly “classical orthodox Islamic position” than Spittoon – a group of bloggers that strike me as being very clearly supportive of democratic norms.
Now I would reject the idea that there is any connection between classical orthodox Islamic positions and HT, as it happens – and one reason would be because (HT’s or MB’s) rejection of democracy as a principle is not one of those orthodox Islamic positions.
However, it does confirm the wide-spread opinion that supporters of Islamism are deep opponents of democracy. Thanks for that – however inadvertent on your part.
I am not sure how anyone was being “racist”, either. I know plenty of chemists, pharmacists, mathematicians and natural scientists who are not South Asians.
“You and the author of the piece ignore WHY the UK govt would want to engage with Islamic groups- its because they are popular.”
Since when has “popularity” become a parameter for engagement?
You might have noticed that the BNP are also becoming increasingly popular. Would you, your co-thinkers at iEngage and the left-wing moonbats at IPPR suggest that HMG should engage with them and other neo-Nazi and ultra-right wing religious groups?
Are you advocating for the BNP to have free and easy access to media networks, satellite TV stations, radio etc just as Islamist groups in the UK do, all in the name of “community cohesion”?
You wouldn’t. And that is the glaring inconsistency in Islamist apologia such as yours.
After clearly not reading the (admittedly very long) quotation I made up-thread from the Egyptian writer Magdi Khalil (who is neither a “Zionist”, nor a secularist agent of Shaytaan), Muslim launches into the tedious and anti-Semitic (that’s racist) mud-slinging so well-beloved of MPACuk regulars.
How very tedious.
Abu Faris
Ah but I didnt say that. Indeed you pretty much twisted all that I wrote. I said HT’s calling for a khilafah is far closer to orthodox Islamic notions than Spittons calling for secularism. I said nothing about democracy
Quite but MB dont reject democracy as Yossarian stated above
Classical orthodox Islam has never promoted a secular state where religion and politics are seperate
Sigh. Yes anyone who contradicts you is an “Islamist”
I said that HT were closer to what Islam says that what the Islam haters at Spitton says – and you use this to imply Im HT!
Give me a break youd throw a hissy if someone came on here with the title “Rabbi Wanabee Jew”. Yet your blog promotes and accepts racism against Arabs. Hypocrites
Faisal
Your tired false anaolgy between religious and racist parties is idiotic. Its as if saying the US being ruled by the Christian right (as it effectively was under Bush) would be the same as the US ruled by the Klu Klux Klan. By saying any system based on sharia would be a facist/Nazi system you are essentially saying Islam is a fascist/Nazi religion (and that Islamic Empire of the past based on sharia were akin to Nazis).
Islamic parties were they are allowed to contest elections in the middle east usually win and are popular. Are you suggesting the Muslims of the middle east are Nazis?
You dont have problems with the UK engaging with Hindu political parties or Jewish ones when they are in givernment in India or Israel. Only with Muslim ones.
And that is the glaring inconsistency in anti-Muslim apologia such as yours.
And BTW the UK governemnt is happy to enage with European governments with far right members . Your zionist mates dont even mind teaming up with them to go to war against Muslim nations. And person you are unaware but the Labour govt (and Conservatives and Lib Dems) do engage with the BNP. They work with them at local coucil level where they are elected.
The TV channel point is also idiotic. Which Islamic TV station in the UK whips up hatred of non Muslims the way the BNP does of non-whites/Muslims? You clearly dont watch them.
And even on its own terms saying the “the BNP are also becoming increasingly popular.” is idiotic- they would never win an election and even winning a single seat would be a major achievement. Islamic parties would win elections.
It seems you dont trust the judgement of people and Muslims in particular to be allowed to vote freely and fairly in elections. Yours is a colonial “the natives arent ready for democracy yet” narrative
a bunch of zionist secularists and irreligious/apostate Muslims who represent only themselves and say what the zionist lobby wants them to.
Abu Faris
Actually the first quote would apply more to Spittoon. And since you fail to adress and try to sweep under the carpet the other points I made and focussed on this small quote of accusing me of not engaging with the whole piece and of mud slinging is pot calling the kettle black.
And how is my comment “anti-semitic” Abu Faris? The anti-semitism on Spitton is the disgraceful anti-Arab racism it tolerates and promotes
Rubbish. Abu Wanabe Arab’s choice of name is intentionally poking fun at the Southasian Muslim phenomenon of regarding Arabs as being racially, culturally, religiously and, most importantly, monetarily superior to themselves. Here is Rafia Zakaria talking about the phenomenon from the Pakistani perspective:
We all know it exists and for you to pretend otherwise and call it anti-Arab racism when people draw attention to it shows that you’re actually ignorant of a widespread Southasian attitude and cultural norm or you are intentionally being a wanker. I suspect the latter.
Also, given that the HT credo aims to install a Caliph who would have to be of Arab stock suggests an inherent strain of racism which you’re again willing to champion and claim as being “far closer to orthodox Islamic notions” is both incorrect and self-contradictory given your previous point that racism is haram. If only you and your fellow travellers at HT would eat your own dogfood for a change.
“Your tired false anaolgy between religious and racist parties is idiotic. Its as if saying the US being ruled by the Christian right (as it effectively was under Bush) would be the same as the US ruled by the Klu Klux Klan.”
By conflating “Islamic” with “Islamist” parties, are you suggesting Islam is inherently supremacist, misogynistic, anti-semitic, authoritarian and anti-democratic?
I think you are. Quick call Bob Pitt! I think we have an Islamophobe on our hands.
The TV channel point is also idiotic. Which Islamic TV station in the UK whips up hatred of non Muslims the way the BNP does of non-whites/Muslims? You clearly dont watch them.
Well, given that the head of Islam Channel is wanted by Interpol on terrorism, weapons and forgery charges should be enough to raise concerns.
“Your tired false anaolgy between religious and racist parties is idiotic. Its as if saying the US being ruled by the Christian right (as it effectively was under Bush) would be the same as the US ruled by the Klu Klux Klan.”
Faisal
Total idiocy. Because you believe some particular Islamic groups have those characteristics you thus are saying any system based on the Quran and Sunnah/n Sharia would be like that. And are effectovely saying the Muslim empires of the past the Ottomans, Abbasids, Muslim Spain. Mughals etc were like that and were akin to Nazis
The TV channel point is also idiotic. Which Islamic TV station in the UK whips up hatred of non Muslims the way the BNP does of non-whites/Muslims? You clearly dont watch them.
Pathetic .So why on earth hasnt he been charged or arrested if these have any basis.
Hes not exactly in hiding is he? Oh wait your associates Douglas Murray and HP believe the UK is a “dhimmi” state where Muslims are above the law. That must be why.
And what does that have to do with the content of the programmes. You clearly have never watched the Islam channel if you compare it to BNP TV.
.
Still it does show how low the Spitton tabloid scrapes.How far is this innuedo against Muslims from the ethics of Islam!
“The TV channel point is also idiotic. Which Islamic TV station in the UK whips up hatred of non Muslims the way the BNP does of non-whites/Muslims? You clearly dont watch them.”
I don’t think you’ve quite grasped the point. Let me put it this way:
Since you are happy to support Islamists and terrorists running Islam Channel which is run by a man wanted by Interpol for terrorism and which exhorts orthodox religious fundamentalist values and religious supremacism, you will no doubt be supporting the BNP should they choose to set up their own private satellite TV channel which inculcates racism, white-supremacism and Nazi ideology in general?
You have to, otherwise your argument falls apart.
“Muslim”.
It does amuse me watching how when you get slapped down on one thread you scuttle off and try your luck on a new one.
It’s a bit like watching HT in action – they discredit themselves in one place and then scuttle off to try their luck somewhere else.
Keep running dudes, if nothing else, it’ll keep you fit. Lol!
GONZO.
OK, I will bite.
The South Asian inferiority complex about Arabs is not something I can comment upon. I can comment upon Arab racism towards South Asians, however – being witness to its horrendous, supremacist vileness on a daily basis. You see, unlike Muslim, I live and work in the Arab world.
I also have first-hand experience of the bigotry, violence, corruption and fascistic nature of MB and the other Islamist thugs who would make the Arab world a million times more unhappy and miserable had they the opportunity. Indeed, in the country I inhabit they have had their way – and for quite some time now. Natural-born progressives, committed to the democratic renewal of the MENA region these people are most certainly not.
Muslim, you write:
Utter nonsense. Here is what Magdi Khalil has to write (in the same article quoted above by me) about the khilafah:
The Sudanese academic, Prof. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im (who is Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory School of Law) has written the following on the seperation of religion and state on the basis of a classical orthodox Islamic position:
The Future of Shari’a: Negotiating Islam in the context of the secular state at http://sharia.law.emory.edu/en/why_islamic_state_un
Again apologies for the length of the quotation.
Finally, it hardly behoves someone who has entirely ignored the theses presented by the writers here and the cited authors I have used to accuse others of “brushing things under the carpet” or ignoring points raised. What is being questioned, Muslim, is the apparent ignorance of IPPR’s views concerning al-Ikhwaan (MB) and other Islamist fellow-travellers in the Arab world and beyond in the wider Muslim-majority states. What is being challenged is the persistent attempt of their supporters to equate Islamism with Islam.
Impression of ‘Muslim’ – ‘what you disagree with Islamists, everybody look a Zionist, a neo-con agent of Mossad kill kill’
A very useful and balanced review of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most recent positions (as exemplified in their draft program) is given here:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/cp89_muslim_brothers_final.pdf
Amongst other things it discusses MB’s aims to exclude women and non-Muslims from running for high office in Egypt; and MB’s desire to institute a religious guidance council (Iranian style), which would have oversight and veto over legislation and which would be (no surprises here) packed with MB members and supporters.
Nice thread, very enjoyable to watch you guys tell these Islamist Lunatic Supporting Assholes were to get off.
I always feel better after visiting your site gentlemen, It restores my faith in logic over lunacy.
Thanks.