http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/453/letters.html

From a member of Workers Liberty, that well known source for definitive comment on religious matters!

Sonic: i was on the demo and have a copy of the MAB paper..now just because you dont agree with the AWL's whole political programme doesnt mean that what they havent quoted isnt true: after all they are quoting FROM MAB ITSELF!
First you screamed THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN MAB & THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD...and then when MAB's own paper shows otherwise you say 'oh well i dont agree with the politics of the AWL so I can close my ears to MAB's OWN words'
Like a lot of SWP supporting crap you write it just doesnt add up

Lets see a link to that, I am not accepting someone who has an axe to grinds word for it, is that ok?

Interestingly enough a google search of "MAB Muslimbrotherhood brings up hits only from Workers liberty, funny that no-one else puts forward that link anywhere.



Interestin article here:


 http://www.chartist.org.uk/articles/britpol/may03riazkahn.htm

"
Despite the efforts of the Stop the War Coalition to unite all people against the war, it is surprising and indeed disturbing to see that some elements of the anti-war movement are still against working with Muslim groups. It is indeed shocking to see that the left can produce its own form of racism and Islamophobia especially considering that they are supposed to be anti-racist. There has been a concern amongst some left wing groups about the Stop the War Coalition’s alliance with the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Many believe that the Muslim Association of Britain are an ‘Islamist’ group and are worried about their connections to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

It is clear that MAB may indeed have conservative views on some issues; however to suggest that they are somehow the same as the Taleban or even fundamentalist groups such as Al Muhajiroun, is ridiculous. This seems to be the position of far left groups such as the Communist Party of Great Britain, Workers Liberty and the anarchist movement. Muslims are therefore monolithically demonised as being reactionary, patriarchal and homophobic whereas these problems are more general aspects of a universal capitalist system. Such prejudices amongst self righteous radicals and indeed a predominantly white and eurocentric leftist, Marxist and anarchist movement can lead to left wing stereotypes which are no different to those of the right.

The traditional Marxist and anarchist position on religion may also be a reason why some elements of the anti-war movement may be uncomfortable at working with religious people. Nevertheless it does seem that many in the left have never had any problem with working with Christian groups such as CND. "

At the end of the day claiming you know someones political views because you know their religion is stupid, imagine if I claimed to know the politics of Someone because they were catholic or CofE.

Both Gerk and the AWL are quoting from the MAB's own literature, which seems like a sensible and reasonable way to conduct an argument.

Your own argument is what, precisely? That you don't like the AWL, so you'll disagree with everything they say on point of principle, no matter how empirical and researched it may be?

Sigh...if only you could get over these petty sectarian squabbles and just try to work with people you only agree with on 99.99% of the time.

Not seen a quote yet just son assertions by people with an axe to grind. If this was true were is the internet link?

Is that ok for you grandad?

BTW, do you do anything else politically than bash muslims and left-wing parties grandad?

Below some facts (I know I know, distracting people with facts rather than hysterical objections, but bear with me it's a habit of mine to use facts rather than letters to obscure newsapers without ever crediting the source)


Aims and objectives of MAB (from their website)

Aims and objectives of MAB

To spread the teachings and culture of Islam, instill the Islamic principles in the hearts of Muslim community and enhance the good morals within the British society

To assist the Muslim community in maintaining its integrity and foster in them good Islamic conduct like worship of Allah, education and social relation especially ties of kinship.

Education and character building for the MAB members according to its syllabus.

Make Muslims aware of their duties towards the society, within which they are living, and towards their duty of being witnesses on mankind.

To promote an active role for the Muslim community in helping to solve the different problems of this society (like crime, drugs, unemployment, families' disintegration, etc.).

To assist in the endeavours being exerted towards protecting human rights in general and Muslims in particular.

To establish a relationship of cooperation and coordination with the other institutions and organizations in any activity which does not contradict with the aims and objectives of MAB.

To broaden the scope of dialogue between the different cultures and faiths in order to serve society and humanity.

To improve the relationship between the Muslim community and the British institutions on the one hand, and the Muslim world on the other so that their social, economic and political relationships shall be revived on sound basis.

To support just causes and take advantage for this of technology, constructive education, and the good morals of society.



Sound like a "Fascist" programme to you?

Sonic: if the MAB paper 'inspire' isnt available online then why is that the fault of gerk and OMH? You say that people would feel differently about Christian groups yet YOU provide no evidence for this silly accusation: indeed when the SWP were in alliance with Rightwing Christian Serb groups during the campaign against the bombing of Serbia..most of the Left DID 'have a problem' with this and pointed that out.
Its stupid to say that if someone you disagree with quotes someone then you dont believe that quote EVEN when the quote is from that organisation itself!
Taking your logic further i guess you NEVER believe what, say, a Palestinian says on an Israeli TV channel as you dont ( i hope??) support Zionism, nor do you believe the Met Office if their weather forecast is published in a tabloid..
Sonic: you are looking more like a prat with every posting...and now you call OMH 'grandad'...is a term associated with old people now deemed fit in your spitefull little mind to used as a term of abuse?

Would any of these islamic fascists like a smack in the mouth,would that wake them Up?

and lets see how many of you get enraged...

Exactly: (swp aside) the Left wouldnt rush into politcal fusion with the politics of, say, the Roman Catholic Church: but when it comes to Islam then its apparently 'racist' to not call for immediate implementation of shar'ia law

Christine you have made an assertion, now it's up to you to back it up. Surely if this were true there would be a reference to it somewhere, where is it?

Looking through MABS site (which I have done) there is no mention of it. A search through the internet finds no mention of it, except in workers liberty.

It's very simple, back up what you allege or withdraw it. Is that too difficult for you?

We work with Christian CND, I have not ever heard of anyone complaining?

In Scotland we work alongside the Catholic Justice and Peace organisation, both on anti-trident activity and on refugee rights (they recently organised a vigil at a refugee centre which the SSP fully supported)

Now why has no-one ever ever complained about that Gerk?

BTW please next time you quote a letter from a paper, do try and put the source, otherwise people might think you were pretending it was your own work.

Okay, with apologies I'm gonna break my silence just once:

In my view, there's little value in assessing groups/movements in an abstract way, based on a formal definition of their ideology or selected quotes from their publications. Because with careful enough argument, almost any group can be defined as anything from Marxist to fascist, depending on what you choose to quote or cite.

Take the Green Party as an example; I've seen them defined as socialist, I've also seen them called reactionary and even quasi-fascist, but common sense and experience says they're neither!

More useful is to look at groups' actual social role; who do they mobilise and what for? In other words, look at the people not the paperwork, and see the big picture.

So, my view on the MAB is that their (fairly obscure) links to the Muslim Brotherhood are largely beside the point. They have not been mobilising supporters for reactionary action against womens rights or gay rights, or even for Islam as such; rather they have mobilised unprecedented numbers of Muslims for protests against war, imperialism and racism. As a real social force they're on 'our' side.

This I think is also the view taken by the SWP and the majority in both the SA and SSP.

Interestingly, your actual extreme reactionary groups like Al-Muhajiroun attack MAB for working with non-Muslim groups in just the same way as ultra-leftists attack StW for working with Muslim groups. We should perhaps remember that many Muslim groups are as suspicious of us as we are of them; and reading IndyMedia you can see why!

I have looked at the MAB webstite ( http://www.mabonline.net if you want to look for yourself) and IT MENTIONS NOTHING ABOUT SHARAIA LAW!!!

And why is it that Islam is denounced as this racist/homophobic/sexist nightmare, while Xtianity et al are just as guilty of spreading hate as Islam is? Just look at the shit the Christian Coalition are up to in America for example.

Can i speak? I am a Christian and a peace activist. I dont know where Thomas J gets the idea that Leftwingers dont criticise Christians from. On many demonstrations i have been on, Leftwingers who identified us as Christians by the church banner we were holding have shouted abuse at us, laughed at us, spat at us and told us "you f**king lot are in power in the US its all your f**king fault. Ive also been informed that merely by being a Christian i am an 'islamophobe' by a young person selling copies of Socialist Worker. Incidentially ive never had any abuse of muslims themselves, who of course rever Jesus as a Prophet, just of Socialist Worker Party people and other Communist groups...if we wish to talk about religious persecution then i could talk about Christians being raped and murdered in Sudan, Nigeria, India, etc etc..but it seems Leftwingers are only interested in suffering if the victim is muslim..

"At the end of the day claiming you know someones political views because you know their religion is stupid, imagine if I claimed to know the politics of Someone because they were catholic or CofE."

Ever been to Northern Ireland?

The issue surely is not whether a group has religious affiliations, but what sort of affiliations they are. So called 'fundamentalists' exist in most religions, but they are usually to be avoided.

but look at any debate on the Indymedia, and 9 times out of 10 the religion who's rights and wrongs that are being debated over is Islam...

quite so - but then ask yourself: how many Christian terrorist groups are there, outside of N Ireland?

Yes I have been to Northern Ireland and met both Catholic and protestant socialists, so knowing someone's religion does not help you with understanding their politics all the time.

Only NI has Christian terror groups, what an odd statement, ignores the militias in the USA, Righ-wingers in Columbia, the Pro-apartheid groups in SA, croatian and serb groups during the bosnian war....

Need I go on?

There may be terrorist groups that may be Christian - eg serbs, croats, as you say. That, however, is not their main motivation, which is primarily nationalist. But there are quite a few terrorist groups which are Islamic whose main inspiration derives from their view of their faith. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, what other motivation lies behind bin Laden and his associates?

It might be of a weird sort, but putting it all down to religion is like imagining Cromwell was only motivated by religion.

You know, the ones (possibly backed by the govt) that go and perscute and terrorise the Muslim minority?

Check out, for example  http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200232002?open&of=ENG-IND, along with other more recent examples of atrocites carried out by Hindu fundalmentalists.

The USA, well at the least the Republican Party.

They helped fund terrorism (Noraid if you want an example that affected the UK).

If you are in any doubt about the fundamentalist form of Christianity of their memvership (the GOP that is), the leader, GWB's comments the other week about god guiding him through the Iraq crisis says it all.

I still don't know why the non-SWP hard left is so upset about the SWP fucking up in such a big way.

I'm personally delighted about their recent activities because it shows them up for exactly what they are - opportunistic nutters with no political programme.

It is worth pointing out that most people on the left are not against working with Muslim groups - they are against working with such groups 'uncritically', and working with 'some' groups over others.

If the SWP were taking the position that Muslims are being victimised, targeted etc and this was leading to racism, then working with such groups is entirely right.

But that is not their position: they are working with 'certain' Muslim groups for their own very sad ends. Defending anyone from racism, exploitation, victimisation and oppression is right; trying to understand where Muslim people are coming from, their ideas, culture, future plans is right; going on marches with them is right.

Joining in an electoral alliance to the detriment of other oppressed groups, faiths, races is wrong.

By the way: if white, right-wing christians were being attacked, or were a huge anti-war element, would the SWP go into an electoral alliance with them?

No

So, doesn't that mean that the SWP are racist.

Err, in a way, yes. But they don't see it because its subconscious - most SWPers are not racists, they are just paternalists and because they have no tradition of democracy or free-thinking, they feel as though the poor 'blacks and asians' need their vanguard leadership too. They are taking up the white man's burden - sad.

Anyway, its all semantic - Trotskyism is dead, revolutionary parties are finished, the way forward is democratic movements and social forums.

Why don't you get the MAB to put the article you're quoting from on the web? Come on! it's YOUR fault, Sonic said so. You remember, the geezer who gets exasperated if lefties criticise each other, but has a cow if you quote something written by a member of the AWL?

Sonic is right!

2+2=5!

BTW, Son; I don't MIND being called Grandad...but did you never wonder why I'm called Ol MUTHA Hubbard..?

Here's the link you want:

 http://mabonline.net/general/docs/inspire.pdf

Happy reading!

It's not me quoting from it.

Error 404 file not found linkman.

im sIck of u all islamophobic..swp is only group that is interested in being against racism..you all just hate islam..so what if we have jettisoned antisexism and antihomophobia you cant really compare sexism or homophobia to racism: after all no one attacks women or gays like muslim attacked..u racists should either join peace and justice party and prove you aint racist or go back to bnp

The above is just so funny, tell me do you have an agent or do you have to spend your time handling yourself?

I may be taking my life in my hands jumping in here!

But I can't help noting that I've seen nothing about this alleged 'Peace + Justice Party' on any mainstream news media, nor in Socialist Worker, nor in any MAB publications or on their website, nor indeed anywhere other than in leaflets and emails from even tinier Trot groups who split from the SWP and hate them with a vengeance.

Seems a bit odd to me that they'd launch a new party and keep it secret! Especially odd for the SWP who are usually obsessed with recruiting to their latest wheeze.

Has anyone got any real evidence that the PJP exists?

sadly, yes the peace and justice alliance is a very real prospect. To be clear its not a Party thats being proposed by Central Committee members John Rees, Chris Bambery and Lyndsy German but an electoral alliance for the Euro elections in Birmingham. German has already publically stated that she wont let gay or womens rights 'get in the way' of said electoral pact. As a dedicated swp member I for one am worried about this whole episode

This particular group of posting has dealt with - but ultimately skirted around - some very important issues. A few comments.

Thomas J asks:
"And why is it that Islam is denounced as this racist/homophobic/sexist nightmare, while Xtianity et al are just as guilty of spreading hate as Islam is? Just look at the shit the Christian Coalition are up to in America for example."

In regards to homophobia... Whatever the Christian Coalition 'are up to in America' how can it possibly be compared to the brutal, state-sponsored persecution of homosexuals in many Islamic countries?

A few examples of official policy:

SAUDI ARABIA: Sodomy between men (which is proved either by the culprit confessing four times or by the testimony of four trustworthy Muslim men), is punished with death by stoning.

AFGHANISTAN: Any man convicted of Sodomy will have a wall toppled on him. If they manage to survive the collapsing wall for more than thirty minutes they are considered innocent.

IRAN: Any man caught making love to another man is given four choices for how he’d like to be executed: by hanging, by stoning, being halved by a sword, or being dropped from the highest perch. Rubbing one's penis between the thighs without penetration is punished by 100 lashes, but is punishable by death if the ‘offender’ is a non-Muslim.


Thomas J also seems concerned about 'sexism'. A few examples of official policy as listed at:  http://www.wae.org/islam/muslim-women.htm

Women in Egypt
* A woman cannot leave the country without her husband's permission.
* FGM (Female Circumcision or Female Genital Mutilation) is widespread in Egypt
* Wife beating is so prevalent that most housewives see it as a normal part of marriage. Social workers spend much of their time just trying to convince victims that their husband's violent acts are unnacceptable.

Women in Pakistan
* In law, the testimony of one man is equal to that of two women
* For a woman to prove rape, four adult males of "impeccable" character must witness the penetration according to the local interpretation of Shari'a or Islamic Law. As a result very, very few men are charged with rape.
* However, according to a CNN report in August 2002, 60% of women are charged with adultery in Pakistan if they are raped. The punishment for their "crime" is that the women are jailed or are forced to marry their rapist.

Women in Jordan
* A man who slays his wife after catching her in the act of adultery is exempt from punishment. Close relatives who kill a female family member who they suspect of adultery are also exempt.

Women in Saudi Arabia
* Women are not allowed to drive automobiles or fly anywhere without the permission of their husband or senior male relative.
* Women can only work in complete segregation from men.

Women in Kashmir
* A woman who leaves the house with her face uncovered runs the risk of having acid thrown in her face.

Women in Iran
* The legal age for marriage of a girl is 9 years old
* Iran's penal code specifies, "The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts". Court appointed officials or ordinary citizens then pelt the accused with stones large enough to cause pain but not large enough to kill immediately. In the Islamic penal code called Sharia the burden to prove guilt in a man is much more than with a woman. Thus women are punished more by their "transgressions" than men. Two women were stoned to death in Iran in 2001, one for adultery and the other for appearing in a pornographic movie. Cited in TIME Europe; Sept 2, 2002, p. 26-7

We won't even go into the treatment of women under the hyper-Islamic Taliban in Afghanistan, or the murderous rioting of Nigerian Islamics last year in response to comments by a female journalist that 'Muhammad might have taken a fancy to one of the Miss World contestants'.

Does Thomas J really think the Christian Coalition - or any other coalition - are 'spreading' as much 'hate' and violence towards women as these mysoginistic (female circumcision, polygamy anybody?), Islamic societies?

Lastly, Thomas J wants to know about racism. Where do we start?

Well how about with one very simple, revealing, and undeniable tenent of the Islamic world:
'All non-Muslims are forbidden from setting foot within the Holy Sites of Mecca, on risk of execution'.

Do Catholics forbid non-Catholics from visiting the Vatican?
Do Jews forbid non-Jews from visiting the Wailing Wall?
Do Buddhists forbid non Buddhists from visiting the Mahabodhi Temple?

Can you imagine the spiritual leaders of any other major world religion condoning the murder of a 'non-believer' just because he or she had tried to get a closer look at one of their Holy Sites?

In the name of Islam, terrorist attacks have recently being carried out against 'non-Muslims' (and often even 'mainstream Muslims') in countries such as: Algeria,
Morroco, Indonesia, The Philippines, Kashmir, Kenya, Iran, Pakistan, Chechneya, Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few.

This is no mere coincidence. Wherever Islam takes root, it only seems to thrive in direct and hostile opposistion to its non-Muslim neighbors.

Unwilling or unable to confront this uncomfortable but undeniable truth, people like 'Scooter' desperately attempt to equate the thousands of Islamic acts of intolerance and aggression (resulting in tens of thousands of innocent deaths), with the actions of "the militias in the USA, Right-wingers in Columbia, the Pro-apartheid groups in SA, croatian and serb groups during the bosnian war...."

What Scooter fails to realize is that however unpleasant these groups might be, they have nothing to do with each other; they are all motivated by totally different causes and beliefs. The pro-apartheid thug in SA has no interest in, and offers no support to, the soldier in Serbia.

That is not the case with Islamic aggression. It is all devoted to the same cause; the Islamic cause. No other religious, political, or social group in recent history is resposible for causing more pain, to more people, in more places, then Islam. Those are the facts. You may not like them, but you cannot deny or disprove them.

Lastly, our friend Sonic reveals his total misunderstanding of the situation when, in trying to shift the motivation for Islamic aggression from religious reasons to political ones (much more palatable for the Indy crowd), he writes:

"Anti-imnperialism? It might be of a weird sort, but putting it all down to religion is like imagining Cromwell was only motivated by religion."

Sonic has clearly failed to grasp the most potent element of Islam - the element that has kept much of the Muslim world mired in the Middle Ages - and the element that seperates it from every other major world religion: namely, that Islam is not just a religion, it represents an all-pervasive way of life. The Koran, unlike the Bible, attempts to set exact guidelines for every aspect of one's existence: from hygine and marriage to criminal justice - from inheritence and charity to dress codes.

Islam is a system of political belief as well as spiritual belief - and the former dictates the latter. For a true Muslim the two go hand in hand. Osama Bin Laden was anti-imperialism because he saw imperialism as anti-Islam. Read his manifestos; you will not find any mention of Starbucks, sweat-shops, or workers rights. He defines it very clearly as a 'Holy War', and he couldn't have been more accurate.

Until we are able to acknowledge and confront the unpleasant realities of Islam, with the same hyper-judgemental and often vindictive enthusiasm that we've denounced every aspect of the Judeo-Christian-Western tradtion, we will be no closer to world peace and universal tolerance then we are today.

buzzbee

That is just the opposite with the

That you could not say about Christianity 400 to 500 years ago.

And tarring all of the Musilm world with the same brush as well, tut tut.....

Thomas, do you realize what a damning indictment of Islam your last comment
actually is?

Per your request, (for a comparison of the evils of America's Christian Coalliton and Islamic fundamentalsim), I had provided factual proof of wide-spread Islamic hate crimes against homosexuals, women, and 'non-believers', but rather than challenge or explore these consclusions you accepted them in their entirety.

By saying, "There's nothing you can say about Islam that you couldn't say
about Christianity 400-500 years ago", you are basically acknowledging and
accepting that Islam is guilty of exhibiting the same sort of intolerance, fanaticism,
and religiously-inspired thirst for expansion, conversion, and if necessary, slaughter, that the Christians demonstrated in monsterous episodes like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisistion.

But Thomas, that's the point: Christianity did it 500 years ago - but we're not living 500 years ago - we're living today. Islam is doing it to innocent people in the 21st century. Other religions have moved beyond such barbarity.

You're basically saying "Yes Islam is currently doing horrible things to innocent people, but that's OK because Christianity did the same stuff in the 16th century". Do you seriously ascribe to this logic? Do you have any idea where such madness would lead?

Stop making excuses for Islam: let us judge them no more softly or harshly than we judge
everyone else. Anything less, is ultimately just an act of paternalistic,
'they-don't-no-any-better' condescension that is racism at its worst.

buzzbee

Islamic fundalmentaism and terrorism is as wrong as any other type of terrorism or fundalmentalism, but you cannot blame it on the religion. Yeah, you can blame it on the Allytollahs, Imrams, and national leaders and their interpretation of Islam, but at the end of the day, Islam is just a religion with as much right to exist as any other, and hopefully if we stop trying to bomb them back to the Stone Age, the terror and fundalmentalism will stop. Also a Muslim can be as capable of being as liberal as a Christian, and a Christian can also be capable of being as fundalmentalist.

I know personally someone who's Pub manger friend in ireland organises "holidays" or "discreet vacations" for the modern day british buissness men who like to travel to such exotic far flung places as bangkok and Pnom Pheng and have unrestricted sex with "thai lady boys" and er sex with children male or female from six or younger to thirteen years old....Apparently ninenty percent of the eastern Pnom Pheng child sex racket client base happen to be British Buisinessmen....So lets not go allowing the pot to call the kettle balck shall we...OOOpps I forget was that Pete townsend viewing child pornography for "research purposes only"" ....duuh...and how about the unseen british male forces in stationed in hush hush africa who routinely deny genetic responsability for unwanted half caste children most of whom happen to have been made in the throes and agony of Sexual Assault and forced sex otherwise known as rape.....and what about MATTHEW KELLY who was founf to have hundreds of kiddy cartoons in an offshore mansion to groom kiddys for blowjobs ...so that's allright then.....
yours truly "bollockschops"

I noted earlier that, as far as I can see, the 'Peace + Justice Party' is a rumour only being advanced by obsessively anti-SWP Trot sects, mostly the 'Weekly Worker' group; and that neither the SWP themselves nor any Muslim group have said a word about it.

And guess what? The latest 'Weekly Worker', online today, has this to say:

"Plans for a 'radical' Peace and Justice platform in Birmingham...are unlikely to have developed much further than the imagination of an increasingly pompous John Rees."

Hmm.. So, let me see, the evidence for the 'PJP' now turns out to consist of, erm, a telepathic reading by 'Weekly Worker' columnists? Come on folks! You could at least have some artists' impressions, or perhaps a dossier...

Having had a look through the comments here, I thought I should add a thing or two and ensure some logical thought. I happen to know the MAB quite well, and what they stand for. I think the website is a good indicator, however limited, so I won't dwell on that point.

However, I'd like you to just think carefully before drawing conclusions from any quote. I happen to know that the editorial process is not as careful as it ought to be, but that's still not the point. The article in question not only mentions the Muslim Brotherhood, but also the Jamaat-e-Islami in India, which (organisationally) is completely separate. Both of these movements were of profound importance in terms of Islamic awakening last century - and they are still significant. That's why they are mentioned in that article, which as you will have noticed, is about HISTORICAL roots.

I fail to see how anyone could use that article to prove some real link, unless that person were intent on pushing some agenda.

Nevertheless, it is clear that MAB's views do have certain aspects in common with the Muslim Brotherhood, especially in the sense of seeing Islam as a vibrant way of life providing solutions to modern problems. I can see that certain people who have posted here have a real problem with the Shari'ah, which would take more than a few words from me to rectify.

However, I'll just state that it's insulting to say that as a Muslim, who - as a vital part of my faith - wants to see our Creator's laws recognised and established on His earth, I would somehow advocate "abolishing women's rights" etc. etc. I believe passionately in all these rights, although in some respects our views may differ. Perhaps I would view what you see as "liberation" as in fact being the *oppression* of women. Furthermore, it seems fine that someone of socialist views wants to see change in society according to his beliefs, but somehow it seems unpalatable to some that groups like MAB strive to create change guided by their faith in God. They are working just like the rest of you are, it's not like they're advocating violence. Certain comments here betray deep prejudices.

For us to understand one another requires dialogue, not diatribe. The use of words like "fundamentalist" is an easy way of avoiding questions that relate to your OWN fundamental assumptions and values. Try giving your Muslim neighbours and fellow campaigners a chance to explain to you just what's going on in their minds and what THEY think will help make our society a better one.

Having had a look through the comments here, I thought I should add a thing or two and ensure some logical thought. I happen to know the MAB quite well, and what they stand for. I think the website is a good indicator, however limited, so I won't dwell on that point.

However, I'd like you to just think carefully before drawing conclusions from any quote. I happen to know that the editorial process is not as careful as it ought to be, but that's still not the point. The article in question not only mentions the Muslim Brotherhood, but also the Jamaat-e-Islami in India, which (organisationally) is completely separate. Both of these movements were of profound importance in terms of Islamic awakening last century - and they are still significant. That's why they are mentioned in that article, which as you will have noticed, is about HISTORICAL roots.

I fail to see how anyone could use that article to prove some real link, unless that person were intent on pushing some agenda.

Nevertheless, it is clear that MAB's views do have certain aspects in common with the Muslim Brotherhood, especially in the sense of seeing Islam as a vibrant way of life providing solutions to modern problems. I can see that certain people who have posted here have a real problem with the Shari'ah, which would take more than a few words from me to rectify.

However, I'll just state that it's insulting to say that as a Muslim, who - as a vital part of my faith - wants to see our Creator's laws recognised and established on His earth, I would somehow advocate "abolishing women's rights" etc. etc. I believe passionately in all these rights, although in some respects our views may differ. Perhaps I would view what you see as "liberation" as in fact being the *oppression* of women. Furthermore, it seems fine that someone of socialist views wants to see change in society according to his beliefs, but somehow it seems unpalatable to some that groups like MAB strive to create change guided by their faith in God. They are working just like the rest of you are, it's not like they're advocating violence. Certain comments here betray deep prejudices.

For us to understand one another requires dialogue, not diatribe. The use of words like "fundamentalist" is an easy way of avoiding questions that relate to your OWN fundamental assumptions and values. Try giving your Muslim neighbours and fellow campaigners a chance to explain to you just what's going on in their minds and what THEY think will help make our society a better one.

This article is typical of the facists within the hard left tendency who oppose every religion and religious organisations. History is littered with incidents of mass murders committed by the soldiers of the left whether they call themselves communists, socialists, securalist, class wariors, workers champions, or anything else. The reality is that the left wants to impose its half baked immoral values on everyone else,and any body who questions their dictatorship is branded a fundamentalist. In fact they are the real fanatics who try to hijack every movement to foist their failed ideology on everyone else. If socialism is so good, and tolerant why under its rule in the former Soviet Union people are still being murdered who oppose it?

The person who wrote this article should take a close look at human rights abuses carried out and still being carried out through the world by lefties who have the same ideology as him. I can see no different between their brand of fanaticsm and that of the BNP and National Front in France, one thing they do have in common is the hatred of Muslims and Islam based on their ignorance and racism.

Johannes Grundmann: Islamische Internationalisten - Strukturen und Aktivitäten der

Muslimbruderschaft und der Islamischen Weltliga. Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2005, ISBN 3-895-00447-2

 http://kuepeli.blogsport.de/2006/06/28/buchrezension-j-grundmann-islamische-internationalisten/