Posted on 02/16/2011 2:30:15 AM PST by Scanian
The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, or al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, is more than a radical network, comparable to al Qaeda; more than an ideological phenomenon, like the followers of Khomeini in the 1979 Iranian Revolution; and more than a political insurgency, similar to Pakistani jihadism. It is an Egyptian Islamist subculture of great depth and influence.
It is therefore also much more than a product of political decisions made by Hosni Mubarak. The Brotherhood was powerful before Mubarak, before his predecessor Anwar Sadat, and before their elder comrade, Gamal Abdel Nasser.
But the Brotherhood today is not identical with the paramilitary Arabist-Islamist Ikhwan that functioned in the 1930s through the 1960s. After those decades, the Brotherhood underwent a social and political transformation that was both impressive in its novelty and disturbing in its effect.
Beginning under Nasser, the Brotherhood came out of the shadows and began organizing to take over the Egyptian professional guilds of doctors and engineers. A researcher sympathetic to the Brotherhood, Amani Kandil, publishing in Arabic but cited in Western sources, has said the decision to focus on medicine and engineering was motivated by the recognition that these were the fields of aspiration where social change had become concentrated in Egypt as the 20th century ended. Universities ballooned in size and ambition, establishing new curricula in technological studies, backed by Nasser’s government. Along with them, the professional guilds expanded their membership.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
There are no ‘protestant’ moslems. There is no ‘christian’ response to the geometric spread of islam. Hate speech laws have outlawed opposition to islam. Islam destroys everything in its path and has no goal save to conquer and rule over a dead world. The vaunted golden age of moslem civilzation is an embrodered myth. Duck and cover.
There are many, many sects of islam. Not all are violent, and they can differ from each other greatly. Every so often the fundamentalists (that go back to the original, militaristic and strict interpretation of sharia law) try to recapture that old glory of global domination. The M. Brotherhood is a big part of that Wahhabist school of fundamental islam. They call the less-fundamental muslims “slackers”, not protestants!
"Moderate and peaceful' moslems would do well to learn about the reality of christ, his life, and his resurrection. Those who deny his divinity will be denied by him. It's very simple - Islam is ersatz theocracy. 'Understanding and relating' to islam won't help moslems - it only gives them more ammunition to claim they are 'right' and you are in need of education about their truth. This is the mistake made by protestants and secular humanists. They aren't educated enough in the history of christianity to support it in the face of a wall of religious and cultural opposition. It's much easier to accede to the arguments and persuasion of the moslems. After all, they aren't in charge of us yet so what harm can it be?
You & I mostly agree. In addition to education ourselves on the history of Christianity it is also important for us to educate ourselves on the history of islam. It’s crucial to “know your enemy”. When those who are apologists for islam spout off about the more moderate sects it’s important (IMHO) to understand what those sects are, their history and why they have been overshadowed by waves of islamic fundamentalism every few centuries. Where we absolutely agree is your opinion that muslims would be better off if they converted to Christianity. One thing the apologists need to understand is that, in many places, leaving Islam means death.
The slacker Muslims are very misleading and dangerous because
Mostly agree with you...
1. Muslim women fight jihad by producing lots of future martyrs. Their standing in the community goes up each time one of their kids go up (in flames).
2. Slacker-moderate muslims are scared to death of jihadists...and they have good reason to be so.
3. The “true islam” thing is more slippery than Clinton defining the word “is”, depending on which sect you are listening to....
4...Bingo; if you want to act like mohammed, spread islam by the sword.
5. I know about abrogation, too. The koran is NOT written in chronological order, though. So, even something as simple as “earlier” can be argued.
This is where the moderate Muslims lie to themselves and to others. The later war-like verses are superior and a moderate Muslim won't be able to argue with a Jihadist on that matter. Both parties know that latter verses are superior (abrogation). Only difference is the Jihadists will gladly proclaim those verses to the infidel while the moderate Muslim will lie to the infidel about them and come up with crap on the "inner Jihad"
There’s millions of moderate mulsims that believe that jihad is a non-violent struggle. The jihadis win these arguments with the slackers because violent jihad is in the koran and the hadith. It’s very simple to point to the life of mohammed, who muslims are told to emulate, and show that he was perhaps the most successful military commander of his time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.