Muslim Association Of Britain..
Gerk Francis | 31.07.2003 10:12
Rather than seeing the same point contested in every single bloody posting here's the facts about the MAB and the fascist Muslim Brotherhood
On the September 28th 2002 antiwar demo the MAB handed out its paper 'inspire'.
An article on page 16 of the paper lays out the “Historical roots and background” of the MAB, tracing them back to Hasan al-Banna: “The ultimate collapse of the Khilafah [caliphate; the Ottoman Empire] in 1924 left the muslim Ummah with no figurehead or leadership ... [But then] he [al-Banna] founded the Ikhwan al Muslimoon or Muslim Brotherhood, whose teachings to this day inspire people the world over ... After him came characters such as Sayyid Qutb and Zainab al Ghazali, Shaikh Yusuf al Qaradawi and Shaikh Rashed al-Ghanouchi, standing at the forefront of islamic teaching and revival ... Another revolutionary scholar ... would later set in motion the largest muslim reformation party in the Indian subcontinent: Sayyid Abu’l A’la Mawdudi and the Jamaat-e Islami ... The Jamaat-e Islami continues to work for the establishment of a society governed by allah’s laws.”
The MAB identifies unambiguously with the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is a moderate, reformist, islamic-fundamentalist party, which builds its upfront public profile around welfare and religious education. It is no surprise that it should use writers like Pilger, Fisk and Ritter to give itself a plausible public face. Its basic politics are, however, the same as those of the shriller fundamentalists: the overthrow of secularism, democracy and women’s rights, and the introduction of a state run under islamic law.
Another article in Inspire (p14) explains a little of what the MAB understand by an islamic state. In their ideal state, a person who “chooses not to embrace islam” may have the right to be a citizen, but only if they “express loyalty to the state and recognise its legitimacy so that he or she does not engage in any activity that may be construed as threatening to its order”. Even then that person’s citizenship is “qualified”, “and such qualification is only lifted when the concerned person embraces islam”.
People who have been muslims and then stop believing face something worse. “There are two muslim schools of jurisprudence on the matter.” According to one, they should face the death penalty; according to the other, they are guilty of “mutiny or treason”, but the penalty need not be death.
Yes, the MAB is a reactionary fundamentalist party. The left should not ally with it.
An article on page 16 of the paper lays out the “Historical roots and background” of the MAB, tracing them back to Hasan al-Banna: “The ultimate collapse of the Khilafah [caliphate; the Ottoman Empire] in 1924 left the muslim Ummah with no figurehead or leadership ... [But then] he [al-Banna] founded the Ikhwan al Muslimoon or Muslim Brotherhood, whose teachings to this day inspire people the world over ... After him came characters such as Sayyid Qutb and Zainab al Ghazali, Shaikh Yusuf al Qaradawi and Shaikh Rashed al-Ghanouchi, standing at the forefront of islamic teaching and revival ... Another revolutionary scholar ... would later set in motion the largest muslim reformation party in the Indian subcontinent: Sayyid Abu’l A’la Mawdudi and the Jamaat-e Islami ... The Jamaat-e Islami continues to work for the establishment of a society governed by allah’s laws.”
The MAB identifies unambiguously with the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is a moderate, reformist, islamic-fundamentalist party, which builds its upfront public profile around welfare and religious education. It is no surprise that it should use writers like Pilger, Fisk and Ritter to give itself a plausible public face. Its basic politics are, however, the same as those of the shriller fundamentalists: the overthrow of secularism, democracy and women’s rights, and the introduction of a state run under islamic law.
Another article in Inspire (p14) explains a little of what the MAB understand by an islamic state. In their ideal state, a person who “chooses not to embrace islam” may have the right to be a citizen, but only if they “express loyalty to the state and recognise its legitimacy so that he or she does not engage in any activity that may be construed as threatening to its order”. Even then that person’s citizenship is “qualified”, “and such qualification is only lifted when the concerned person embraces islam”.
People who have been muslims and then stop believing face something worse. “There are two muslim schools of jurisprudence on the matter.” According to one, they should face the death penalty; according to the other, they are guilty of “mutiny or treason”, but the penalty need not be death.
Yes, the MAB is a reactionary fundamentalist party. The left should not ally with it.
Gerk Francis
Comments
Display the following 40 comments