Submitted by Jeff Nixon, Mar 12, 2007 13:58

I lived in parts of the middle east for several years and I was very interested in reading, talking and understanding what is going on in those countries. I have to disagree with 90% of what was mentioned in the article about the Muslim Brotherhood. The most critiquing but still fair observing would rank them as some right wing conservatives. They insist on their religious background as much as western conservative parties do. They are for using force against foreign occupiers (in their view this applies on USSR in Afghanistan, Israel and USA in Iraq). They do not support in any way, at least publicly, and to a very believable way in discrete, any terrorist acts. So, they were against 9-11, Spain Bombing, London Bombings and such. They declared their opposition to targeting civilians in Iraq or inter-sectarian war there.
Some say their renounced violence for more than 30 years. According to them, they NEVER used arms other than against Israel in 1948 and against the British in 1950-1951 when they occupied Canal Suez in Egypt. They were officially outlawed in 1949 after the scandalous defeat of the Egyptian Army and other Arab army against Israel. At that time, some Ikhwan volenteers helped in that war and the Egyptian government was afraid that armed men come back from the war front with frustration and turn back on it. They jailed a large number of those who were on their way back in a satanic jail in Sinai before they cross Canal Suez to Cairo. They also assassinated the founder of the Ikhwan; Hassan Al-bana and banned any one to accompany his funeral.
During that time, right before or right after, not quite sure, the Prime Minister of Egypt was shot dead. His death was praised by most Egyptians who all were too upset of the defeat by Israel. The person who was accused of the killing got a rather light sentence (He may have even been acquitted). Later on, when Jamal Abdel-Naser was in conflict with the Ikhwan, he claimed that they were behind that murder. He also accused them of planning to kill him in 1954 (+/- 1 year) after which he arrested 1000's of them, put them in jail and they were tortured in a Satanic way. He did the same thing again in 1962. Among those who were arrested was Sayed Kutb, the only person among Ikhwan Ayman Zawahry respect and consider his inspirer. According to Ikhwan, they have nothing to do with the killing of the Prime Minister in 1949 or the murder attempt in 1954. In the worst case, even if they are lying, those were the last and only two crimes that were attached to them. So, even if we assume they have committed those killings/attempts, that make 53 years not 30 years.
Regarding Zawahry, he may have started among the Ikhwan, but he definitely belonged to a much different ideology. The second "Supreme Guide" of Ikhwan authored a book titled "Missionaries not Judges" to address that new ideology which started from within Nasser Jails. Basically, some of the jailed people being tortured in the most savage satanic ways, started asked the question: We and our jailers can not belong to one same religion, we know we are Muslims, so they must be non-Muslim or Infidels. This was the first branching out of Ikhwan under the Catalyst of torture and jails. In that Book, Al-Hudaibi highlights that the mission of Ikhwan is to call people to the True Religion and True Path pf God but it is not their business to judge them whether they are Muslims or Infidels; it is God's business to do so. Zawahri and Co. considered it blasphemy and non-sens. Later on, he wrote a book called "The Bitter Harvest" where he makes a detailed bill of the blasphemous actions of Ikhwan and Ikhwan Leaders with only one exception "Sayed Qutb".
The fist branch out of Ikhwan in jails were called "Takfeer & Hijrah" or Calling others Infidels and Migration. It was more of a passive ideology which disintegrate itself from society and hate the society for their bad deeds and creed. Among that ideology, started another more active one which called itself "Jihad Group". They were extremely secretive, they would never introduce themselves as such or call others to join their ranks unless they are 100% sure of their loyalty. Their goal was to topple the "blasphemous" Regime in Egypt by force and so they planned and executed the killing of Sadat in 1981.
According to some, some people with affiliation to Ikhwan executed the attack. This is totally wrong as the court case itself proves otherwise. Even, when the defense called a witness, they called a sheikh who was known to be in total disagreement with the Ikhwan: He was Sheikh Omar (who was lter jailed and sentenced in NY in the 90's for his fatwa regarding bombing of the WTC).
The other Ideology that forms the Qaeda today is the Salafi presented in Osama Bin Laden himself. The Salafi are people who interpret the Quran and Muhammad's tradition in a more "superficial" way. Therefore, they would always grow beards, wear long dress to the knees, wear turban, and so on, which are considered "Outer Guidance" by other scholars of Islam. As such they are recommended but by far not as important as the purification of the soul, and manners, and worship and so on. The salafis were traditionally more passive, they would not talk about politics or be concerned about what happens in the world. It seems as if that ideology mutated when came in contact with the "Jihad" movement in Afghanistan. One represented in Osama bin Laden and the other represented in Ayman Al-zawahry.
Both movements agree on their hatrate to Ikhwan and considering them "Infidels" because they chose the non-violent path by going through elections, society institutions and changing it from within be peaceful means. Ikhwan enjoy similar sentiment from Arab regimes as well as the west. The reason Arab regimes hate them, is that it is not easy for them to convince their people that they are violent, terrorist or such. People in those countries know first hand that it is not true. They are also hated by the west mainly because they refuse to accept Israel and they denounce all forms of occupation to Arab or Muslim land including blessing the military resistance in those countries.
In 1991 during the first Gulf War, 100's of thousands of protesters marched in Cairo as well as in many other Arab cities denouncing both Saddam Hussein and the US. Saddam for attacking Kuwait and the US for intervening in the region in a way they were skeptical about the reason behind it.
The regime in Egypt continues to arrest the Ikhwan almost every month, or every week. They succeeded to win 88 seat on the Egyptian parliament out of 450 total. Should elections been fair, some believe they would have secured at least 2 or 3 folds. They announced that they do no no plan on taking a majority of seats in any case not to pose a threat to the regime. So, they had candidates for 50% of the seats. It also allowed them to put more focus on a smaller number of places.
The 88 MP are a big headache in the parliament. The Government MP's are often absent and the remaining 88 sometimes form a majority and sometimes are very harsh in their questions to Ministers and against proposed legislations and such.
With the Senatorial elections approaching, the government decided to arrest the wealthiest Ikhwan to prevent the Ikhwan from a source of funding that could help them win seats there. Also, it happens while the parliament is discussion the proposed constitution amendments proposed by the President which observers believe would increase his power and put the emergency laws in a more non-emergency form more permanent!
Those arrested usually include University Professors, Physicians, Engineers, Journalists, Students, Lawyers and other professionals. In the last case that included 29 business men, the civil court declared them free of any charges. The President then signed a decree for them to be trialled before a martial court whose judge is also appointed by the President, sentences are often twice as harsh if people are convicted, no appeal, and shorter time to defend yourself.
Some also thought that the Ikhwan will revolt and adopt violence after the Regime in Egypt just crossed all red lines and there was no denunciation what so ever from the west. It did not happen. The Ikhwan instead announced that rejection of violence for them is not a tactic but a strategy and therefore, they will continue to strive in every possible way without resorting to violence.

One thing before I finish; in regards to Sayed Qutb, he was sentenced to death and executed by Nasser in 1966. He is the only figure Al-Zawahry and Co. like amongst Ikhwan writers/philosophers. The Ikhwan themselves have a different interpretation to his writings that, according to them, does not call for violence against regimes.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.