Category Archives: Muslim Brotherhood

Libya’s Muslim Brothers Emerge from the Shadows

Posted on by

Andrew McGregor

Terrorism Monitor, November 24, 2011

Political parties continue to multiply in Libya, but few are so well prepared and organized as the National Gathering for Freedom, Justice and Development (NGFJD), the political front of Libya’s long-repressed Muslim Brotherhood and associated Libyan Islamists. Led by Shaykh Ali al-Salabi, the Benghazi-based party is modeled on Turkey’s ruling Islamist Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi – AKP) (Arab News, November 17).

Libyan Muslim Brotherhood Leader Suleiman Abdelkadir

Formerly based in Geneva, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood held its first post-revolutionary conference on Libyan soil in mid-November. The Benghazi event was attended by several hundred delegates (AFP, November 18). Remarks by the Brotherhood’s leader, Suleiman Abdelkadir, included a call for Libyan factions to unite in the task of rebuilding Libya as it was “not a task for one group or one party, but for everyone…” (Reuters, November 18).  Abdelkadir told the conference the Brotherhood was in favor of a civil state in Libya: “We don’t want to replace one tyranny with another. All together, we want to build a civil society that uses moderate Islam in its daily life” (OnIslam.net, November 18).

The conference included speeches by members of Tunisia’s Islamist Ennahda Party and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and was attended by ministers of the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC), including Defense Minister Jalal al-Degheili and Islamic Affairs Minister Salam al-Shaykhli. Many of the Brothers at the conference were reported to be highly educated and fluent in English (Reuters, November 17).

NGFJD leader Shaykh Ali al-Salabi, a prominent figure in Libya’s Islamist movement, is regarded as a polarizing individual by many who accuse him of being under the influence of Turkey and Qatar. He is especially disliked in Tripoli, where thousands have gathered in demonstrations against his efforts to bring Shari’a to Libya.

Shaykh Ali al-Salabi

Responding to those in Libya who have expressed their opposition to religious leaders in politics, al-Salabi said: “I believe that Islam covers all, including politics. In the past we were deprived from implementing the principles of Islam. I am a religious person, I am also a Libyan citizen. I have my say with regard to the political issue… We call for a moderate Islam. But you all have to understand that Islam is not just about punishment, cutting hands and beheading with swords” (Reuters, October 10). Al-Salabi maintains that the NGFJD is a nationalist party similar to the moderate Islamist Ennahda party that took recent elections in Tunisia (Arab News, November 17). The party is likely interested in having a large representation in the new government when the crucial question of writing a new Libyan constitution is addressed.

The TNC is planning to hold general elections in June, 2010. It is difficult to gage the degree of support the Islamists have – some observers maintain they would easily win an election, while others, like Ashur Abu Dayyah (founder of the 17 February Free Forum) estimate all the Islamist factions combined do not exceed 10% support in Libya (al-Sharq al-Awsat, October 8).

The resignation of interim Prime Minister Mahmoud al-Jibril on October 23 helped halt a growing rift between the ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) and al-Salabi, who called for his resignation. Under criticism for his divisive approach at a critical juncture in the Libyan revolution, al-Salabi later noted he had opposed the Prime Minister’s “professional capabilities and performance,” not his religious views (Reuters, October 10). Al-Salabi’s campaign against al-Jibril even failed to get the support of Abd al-Hakim Belhadj, the powerful commander of the Tripoli Military Council, who has unexpectedly joined the NGFJD. Belhadj is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan and a former Libyan Islamic Fighting Group commander who was imprisoned by the Qaddafi regime for eight years before his release in an amnesty for Islamist militants who renounced violence. He is generally regarded as the Qatar-supported leader of the Salafist-Jihadist trend in Libya. Whether Belhadj’s presence in the party will serve to radicalize the NGFJD or to moderate Belhadj remains to be seen. Belhadj is considered a leading candidate to become Libya’s new Minister of Defense (al-Arabiya, November 18; for Belhadj, see Militant Leadership Monitor, September 29; Terrorism Monitor Brief, September 9).

For now, however, Belhadj has downplayed charges of an impending Islamist takeover of Libya:

The Islamists are a principal constituent of the Libyan people, and they have performed very well in rescuing Libya from the things of which the citizens suffered. This does not mean that there is no body other the Islamists who have exerted patriotic efforts for the salvation of Libya… We have been and we will continue to confront exclusion tendencies that always claim that the Islamists impose dangers on the society, and have intentions that lead to instability and to threats to the security of the country and of the region, and so on. These claims are not true. We will not behave in any other way than to further the security of the country first and the stability of the region second, and we will have equal relations with all, which will be based on mutual respect and joint interests (al-Hayat, September 19).

Interim Libyan leader Mustafa Abd al-Jalil, a former Qaddafi justice minister, has declared that “any law that violates Shari’a is null and void legally,” citing in particular the Qaddafi regime’s restrictions on polygamy (NOW Lebanon, October 28). Dr Muhammad Abd-al-Muttalib al-Huni, a prominent Libyan intellectual and former adviser to Sayf al-Islam al-Qaddafi, may be said to represent the largely secular component of Libyan society that finds the TNC’s priorities puzzling: “Mr Mustafa Abd-al-Jalil is an ignorant man who is suitable only to be a Shari’ah registrar of marriages and divorces. On the day of declaring liberation the only thing in his mind was to rescind the law that limits polygamy. This law was not a gracious gift from al-Qaddafi, but it was the result of the struggle by Libyan women for more than six decades.” Al-Huni also mocks al-Jalil’s announcement he will eliminate Western-style banks that practice “usury” in favor of non-interest paying Shari’a-compliant banks, saying Libya’s interim leader forgets “that without national and foreign banks there can never be a prosperous economy, and the unemployed youths will not be able to fulfill their dreams and prosperity, for which they aspire after the revolution” (Ilaf.com, October 27). Even al-Salabi dismissed al-Jalil’s aspirations for Libya’s banking system: “This is his opinion, nothing else” (Arab News, November 17).

Unlike the hastily-organized political parties springing up everywhere in Libya, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood has been organizing since its formation in 1949, often meeting underground in Libya or abroad in Europe. Though membership has for these reasons been traditionally small, the party is made up mainly of a dedicated core of educated professionals who are sure to mount a formidable campaign to form the first post-revolution government in Libya so long as it can control rivalries within the party.

This article first appeared in the November 17, 2011 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor.

 

Leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Discusses Future of Egypt and Relations with the United States

Posted on by

Andrew McGregor

November 3, 2011

A series of once inconceivable meetings between U.S. representatives and leaders of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood [MB] in October presented a triumph for the Brothers’ efforts to establish themselves as responsible partners in the post-Revolution democratic transition. In the wake of these developments, the Egyptian Brotherhood’s leader, Dr. Muhammad Badi, discussed the implications of these discussions and the Brotherhood’s role in Egypt’s political transition (Akhbar al-Yawm [Cairo], October 30).

 

Dr. Muhammad Badi, Leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

Regarding the movement’s recent contacts with U.S. representatives, MB General Guide Dr. Badi recalls that not long ago the United States regarded such contacts as “100% taboo” and urges Washington to deal with new political realities in the Middle East: “The U.S. Administration has to understand well the lesson of the Arab spring revolutions. We hope it will deal with the peoples not rulers because rulers are bound to go. Consequently the interests of the Americans are not guaranteed with the rulers. So I hope they will deal with the Egyptian people as being the source of the powers. The people are the side to wager on now.”

Though the Brotherhood has emphasized it is not seeking a majority in the new parliament and is not running a presidential candidate to mute claims the Brothers are seeking to take control of Egypt, the Brothers’ political wing, Ḥizb al-Hurriya wa al-’Adala (Freedom and Justice Party – FJP), has nonetheless emerged as the strongest political faction in the current political environment. Badi insists that this is not a sin or crime for which the movement should seek forgiveness: “. It is the harvest of jihad and struggle and of having stood in the face of injustice for tens of years. We paid a dear price for it. Suffice it to mention that over the past 15 years alone 40,000 MB members were detained.” Nonetheless, Badi maintains that reforming Egypt will take a broad, unified effort: “We cannot run Egypt, live in Egypt, or win in the elections except through accord. This is a foregone conclusion, for we know that Egypt’s problems are too heavy to be borne by any single faction under any circumstances.”

However, deliberately avoiding responsibility for the inevitable failings (real or perceived) of the new government may well be a practical political strategy for the MB. As Badi notes, those who are demanding a new government must realize that such a government will face a host of problems accumulated over thirty years: “[The new government] will face problems and those who demanded its appointment will go down to Tahrir Square to call for its downfall. This is why we must realize that we are in a transitional period.”

Despite the Brotherhood’s insistence it is not seeking to take power in the new government, the movement is taking measures to make sure its MPs are among the most effective and least tainted by corruption in the new government by excluding all candidates involved in unethical behavior or financial irregularities. According to Badi, an educational camp has been set up for the training of all MB candidates

While observers have noted a proliferation of new MB offices in nearly every district of Egypt since the Revolution, Badi rejects accusations that the movement was suddenly in possession of funds from abroad: “Not a single cent entered our pocket from any funds or financing. We are the people most concerned about transparency and integrity because we fear Allah. We can never accept any funds from any quarter under any circumstances.” Dr. Badi warns that the Revolution is under threat from both “vested interests” inside Egypt and external interests that used to benefit from the pliable nature of the former regime, which was always ready to respond positively to foreign demands.

Like most of the MB’s leadership, Badi is a veteran of repeated terms in Egypt’s prisons, but he believes that the detentions of the movement’s leaders gives the group credibility among the Egyptian masses and provided an opportunity to reflect on the correct course for Egypt: “While we were in prison we were thinking of what is in Egypt’s interest, like Prophet Joseph who entered jail on a false charge but despite this kept thinking about how to save Egypt.”

Last month Dr Muhammad Sa’d al-Katatni, the secretary general of the FJP met with an official from the U.S. National Security Organization and the First Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo at the FJP headquarters in Cairo (Bikya Masr [Cairo], October 6). Shortly thereafter, a delegation of assistants to U.S. House representatives met with MB Secretary General Dr. Mahmud Husayn and movement spokesman Dr. Mahmud Ghazlanon October 18.

In an interview with a pan-Arab news agency, al-Katatni downplayed the significance of the unprecedented dialogue with official American representatives: “The United States has interests in the region, and if observers see that the FJP is close to power, then it is natural that the Americans should hasten to initiate dialogue with it to know its inclinations. This falls also within diplomatic norms and not only within reconciliation” (Ilaf.com, October 3).

According to MB spokesman Dr. Ghazlan, the MB leaders assured the Americans that the movement had set a ceiling of acquiring only a third of available parliamentary seats and would not run a candidate for president “because the Brotherhood was used as a scarecrow in the past,” adding that the Americans’ understanding of Islam “included frivolities, distortions and misconceptions. We explained to them the status of non-Muslims in the Islamic State and that they have the freedom of belief and worship and to apply the rules of their religion in dealings and to perform their rites in full freedom” (al-Hayat, October 21).

This article first appeared in the November 3, 2011 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Somalia: An Interview with the Islah Movement’s Abdurahman M. Abdullahi Baadiyow

Posted on by

Andrew McGregor

July 28, 2011

The Jamestown Foundation recently posed a series of questions in an online interview with Abdurahman M. Abdullahi (Baadiyow), an Islamic scholar and prominent leader of the Islah (Reform) movement in Somalia.  The interview was designed to shed light on the views of Somalia’s Muslim Brotherhood (under the banner of the Islah movement and the incipient Justice and Unity Party) on a number of the political, religious and social issues facing Somalia today. Among the topics discussed are the political activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, the future of the embattled Transitional Federal Government, the influence of al-Qaeda on Somalia’s al-Shabaab movement, the introduction of Salafism to Somalia, the effect of American intervention in Somalia, the possibility of a popular uprising in the style of the “Arab Spring” and the roots of Islamic resistance in Somalia in the Dervish movement of Sayid Mohamed Abdulla h Hassan. [1]

 

Abdurahman M. Abdullahi (Baadiyow)

[Jamestown Foundation] Somalia’s Islah Movement is often described as Somalia’s Muslim Brotherhood. How close is Islah to the ideology of Hassan al-Banna and the Egyptian Ikhwan? Does Islah maintain contacts with the international Muslim Brotherhood?

[Abdurahman M. Abdullahi]  Islah describes itself as an Islamic movement representing the Muslim Brotherhood in Somalia. It takes inspiration and understanding of Islam from the ideological guidelines laid down by Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in 1928. Its vision is based on looking Islam as a comprehensive way of life and a religion that, besides calling for worshipping one God (Allah), calls for adopting Islamic principles and values in the social, political and economic spheres.  The Islah Movement is part of the international network of Muslim Brotherhood organizations. These organizations are independent entities that are united in their peaceful and gradual approach in reforming their societies and promoting the concept of the universality of Islam and its peaceful coexistence with other worldly regions.  The international network of the Muslim Brotherhood plays a consultative role and is a forum to exchange ideas and share experiences among its members.

Can you describe the platform and goals of your new political formation, the Justice and Unity Party?

For the Somali state to recover, a pan-clan national civic movement is required that surpasses clan based organizations, a movement that invigorates the concepts of citizenship and democratic governance on the one side and accommodates Islam and the clan system in a new social contract on the other. Only through a national movement with multiple persuasions and organizations united in the strategic goal of restoring the Somali state and tolerance to each other, will capable and qualified leadership emerge and the state recover.

The Justice and Unity party is a new initiative of the Islah Movement which aims to mobilize Somali society through a national political party. The founders of the party will not be limited to the members of Islah, but will include many prominent personalities, both men and women. This party is in the process of formation and will be announced publicly when all the required steps are completed. It adopts the general guidelines and principles of Islamic moderation, consultation (shura), and democracy. Its main principles include safeguarding the dignity of all citizens, protecting universal human rights and realizing justice and unity in the war-torn Somalia. It also advocates and promotes peace and cooperation in particular amongst the peoples of the Horn of Africa. Moreover, it strives to transform Somali society from clan based partisan politics to a modern society where political affiliation and ideology plays a role in political competitions. Membership of the party will be open equally for all Somalis who are willing to join and adhere to its principles and policies. More details of this party and its leadership will be published after its public announcement.

The Islah Movement welcomed the decision of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) cabinet to implement Shari’a as Somalia’s new official legal code in 2009. Two years on, how would you assess the success of this change? Why do you think al-Shabaab, which demands Shari’a in Somalia, continues to reject the TFG’s effort to impose Shari’a?

Even though the Islah Movement welcomed this decision, it was well aware that the TFG cannot implement Shari’a because it is very corrupt and weak.  Moreover, it is our understanding that implementing Shari’a should not be equated with the application of some elements of hudud (criminal punishments) for offenses such as theft, fornication and the consumption of harmful drugs. Application of Shari’a is very wide concept and instead of focusing on the doable parts of Shari’a such as mercifulness, cooperation, caring for the weak, respecting other religions and good governance based on consultation (shura) or democracy, extremist elements focus on the punishment aspects of Shari’a. Welcoming the TFG’s decision was meant to support the right direction in accordance with Islah ideology.  On the other hand, even though al-Shabaab calls for the application of Shari’a, their understanding of Islam is a distorted, extremist approach departing from Islamic moderation and the gradual, transformational approach. They want to apply Islam violently without any legitimacy.  The only Shari’a they can accept is their way of Shari’a under their absolute leadership.

Al-Qaeda is often claimed to play an important part in the al-Shabaab insurgency. How would you assess al-Qaeda’s influence on the Islamist movement in Somalia?

First, let me address the wrong usage of the terminology “Islamist movemen”t to describe al-Shabaab. Islamist movements are not monolithic and include various organizations promoting, teaching, advocating for the application of Islamic principles and adhering to its values in the society and the state. Al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab – its offshoot in Somalia – do not represent the Islamic movement and in doing so distorts the image of all Islamic movements. They could be described simply as armed Islamic movements. Historically, direct al-Qaeda involvement in Somalia started in 1991 when its members infiltrated the al-Itihad al-Islamiya movement in the early years of the civil war. Osama bin Laden during his stay in Sudan [1992-96] was interested in creating an al-Qaeda affiliated organization in Somalia and pushed al-Itihad, which was a neo-Salafist movement, towards armed conflict. However, when the leaders of al-Itihad abandoned armed struggle, a splinter group under the name of al-Shabaab appeared on the scene after al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on U.S. targets.  Al-Shabaab today is a formidable force and controls large swathes of southern Somalia though their ideological influence is dwindling.

Al-Shabaab’s destruction of Sufi shrines and tombs has led to the formation of a Sufi-based armed movement. How would you assess the role of Ahl al-Sunna wa’l-Jama’a in Somalia?

Ahl al-Sunna wa’l-Jama’a is a new name which means “Sufi brotherhoods in Somalia” even though the name originally covered all Sunni branches of Islam and only excluded the Shi’a and  a number of other sects. Armed Sufis are not a new phenomenon in Somalia; a similar situation occurred during the first two decades of the 20th century when the Dervish movement under the leadership of Sayid Mohamed Abdullah Hassan led the armed Salihiyah Brotherhood against Britain and Ethiopia. Moreover, this movement also fought the Qadiriyah and Dandarawiyah brotherhoods that refused to accept the leadership of Sayid Mohamed. The new armed role of Ahl al-Sunna wa’l-Jama’a is a reaction to Shabaab’s destruction of the revered shrines. It will have serious consequence on the traditional peaceful approach of the Sufi brotherhoods even as they encounter spreading Wahhabism in Somalia.

The mandate of the Transitional Federal Government is about to expire. Do you view the attempt to renew this mandate as legitimate?

The original mandate of the TFG expires in August 2011, however, it was extended for an extra year in order to be able to complete transitional tasks such as adopting a new constitution, forming a new, smaller parliament, electing a president and forming a new government. Constitutionally, the extension is considered illegitimate; nevertheless, there is no alternative way for national institutions to be renewed. The unpopular agreement arrived at in Kampala under the leadership of the Ugandan president [the June 9 Kampala Accord] was finally approved by the parliament and a new government was formed under the leadership of a Somali-American professor [new Prime Minister Dr.Abdiweli Mohamed Ali]. Let us hope that things will change for the better during the next year.

Do you believe the TFG has the potential or ability to restore a functioning government to Somalia?

It is very difficult to predict the future performance of the TFG, which is under great pressure. There is no doubt that the capacity of the TFG in terms of leadership, human resources, finances and security institutions is very poor. However, it seems that a new educated elite is entering the political game, which gives us some hope. I am hopeful and see the light at the end of the tunnel. I see improvement day after day, better administration, and dedication of the new leaders.

What direction do you think is appropriate to replace the TFG?

There were many failed efforts at institution building in Somalia during the last 20 years in which Somalis had imposed upon them some sort of state building model that had failed. Indeed, there is a need for new and serious thinking on how to build a new Somalia. It requires new national vision, new approaches and new leadership.  The new vision should focus on peacefulness, justice and unity of the society. This approach should be Somali-driven, legitimate and supported by the external stakeholders. New political institutions will eventually produce new leadership beyond the civil war mentality.

Somali president Shaykh Sharif Shaykh Ahmad is one of the most controversial figures in Somalia. What differences (if any) do you see between the Shaykh Sharif who was leader of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) and the Shaykh Sharif who is the President of Somalia?

The difference is between his two locations of power. In the first place, he was leading armed opposition forces that fought against a warlord alliance believed to be funded by the CIA counter-terrorism task force in the Horn of Africa. The ICU included diverse groups which were united to topple President Abdullahi Yusif’s weak government and to fight the Ethiopians.  Currently, Shaykh Sharif is in the mantle of the President of Somalia under the protection of AMISOM forces. He is in a very difficult position in fighting his former colleagues. For sure, Sharif has gained more experience now than he had during his tenure as the leader of the Islamic Courts Union.

Do you see American military and financial support of the TFG as a positive or negative contribution to the Somali political process? How does your movement view U.S. drone attacks on al-Qaeda suspects within Somalia?

There is no doubt that U.S. counter–terrorism policy in the Horn of Africa has played a bigger role in fuelling extremism and strengthening al-Shabaab. On the other hand, I also think that without direct and indirect American support to the TFG, al-Shabaab could have taken over the rest of Mogadishu and Somalia. It requires a prudent and calibrated approach to cooperate without instigating further violence. With respect to drone attacks, we see them as negative in achieving the goal of eliminating terrorism.  New and more dedicated individuals will emerge to avenge their mentors and leaders.  The method of drone attack is not welcomed by my organization.

Of all the countries in Africa, Somalia would seem to have the greatest promise for unity. It shares a common language, a common ethnicity and a common religion, yet Somalia remains almost impossibly divided after two decades of political and social instability. Is this an internal phenomenon, or have external factors contributed to this development?

It is true that Somalia’s peoples share the same language, adhere to the Islamic faith, and despite its numerous clans, belong mainly to one ethnic group.  These factors were thought to serve as vital ingredients in nation building in the developing world. However, the collapse of the Somali state in the early 1990s and the increasing intra-clan conflicts in many parts of the country poses a challenge to re-instituting state and nation-building. The collapse of the Somali state is the product of complex factors: original, operational and proximate causes that include external as well internal factors. In the final analysis however, responsibility of the collapse of the Somali state and the difficulty of its restoration lies primarily on the shoulders of the leadership of Somalia.  All nations have challenges, but their leaderships come up with solutions and save their nations. In that context, Somalia is not different and eventually leaders will emerge and end this protracted conflict.

Salafism appears to be a growing trend in Somalia, often displacing traditional Sufism. Do you see Salafism as compatible with the national and historical Somali character?  

No. Salafism, which is known in Somalia as Wahabism, is a new intruder in Somalia that is not tolerant to traditional Islamic practices. It is confrontational and fights against al-Shari’a theology, the Shafi’iyah school of jurisprudence and Sufism, which are the three components of traditional Islam in Somalia. All violent confrontations in the name of Islam are driven by some elements who claim to belong to the Salafia ideology. Al-Itihad and its offshoot al-Shabaab share the ideology of Salafism.

Al-Shabaab’s Shaykh Jama Abdusalam recently urged Somalis to “carry out Egyptian and Tunisian-style uprisings in Somalia.” Is there a possibility for this in Somalia? The response of the Brotherhood to the popular uprising in Egypt has seemed confused and contradictory at times. In the event of such an uprising in Somalia, what role would you foresee for your movement?

Frankly, I do not think there is the possibility of a popular uprising at this particular historical moment in Somalia. With respect to the role of Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian uprising, allow me to disagree that it was confused and contradictory. I have had the honor of visiting Egypt after the uprising and participated in the opening of the Muslim Brotherhood main office in Cairo. I have met and discussed the role of Muslim Brotherhood in the uprising with many of their leaders. They have affirmed that even though they did not initiate the uprising, they were nevertheless the most organized group to participate in it and maintain it.  Somalia had passed through a similar uprising in the late 1990s and the Libyan and Yemani scenarios are very close to what Somalia experienced 20 years ago. The Islah Movement is working to lead civic transformation in Somalia and strives to bring together a divided nation and to restore dignity and unity. This process is not through uprisings, but through planned programs that allow the participation of the majority of Somalia’s citizens.

Note

  1. For the Dervish Movement of Sayid Mohamed Abdullah Hassan, see Andrew McGregor: “Expelling the Infidel: An Historical Look at Somali Resistance to Ethiopia,” Terrorism Monitor, February 21, 2007, https://www.aberfoylesecurity.com/?p=1281

This article first appeared in the July 28, 2011 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor.

Senior Muslim Brother Says Political Change in Arab World Could Result in a Unified International Muslim Brotherhood

Posted on by

Andrew McGregor

June 9, 2011

Having just returned to his native Egypt after 23 years of exile, prominent Muslim Brother Dr. Kamal al-Helbawi has spoken optimistically of the Brotherhood being able to take advantage of the momentous political shifts in the Arab world to form a united and international movement dedicated to the furtherance of moderate Sunni Islam in the political field. His remarks appeared in an interview with a pan-Arab daily (al-Sharq al-Awsat, June 1; June 5).

Dr. Kamal al-Helbawi

Al-Helbawi, who holds British citizenship, has studied in Pakistan, worked in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, and has pursued business activities while leading or playing a major role in a number of British-based institutions such as Center for the Study of Terrorism and the Global Civilizations Study Center. He has also been a prominent member of a number of British or international Muslim organizations while acting until recently as the Muslim Brotherhood’s spokesman in the West.

Al-Helbawi notes that the Muslim Brotherhood lacks any international organization at present, though he describes this as a “Brotherhood dream,” and one of the main goals of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949). Efforts to increase international coordination have been stifled by pressure from security forces in Egypt, Syria, Libya and elsewhere in the Arab world, save for Jordan, where the movement is allowed to operate openly. However, al-Helbawi suggests that “after the revolution in Egypt, the revolutions in Libya, Tunisia, Syria and Bahrain, maybe matters could improve” and unification might be possible along the lines of “world socialism” or the “Zionist movement.” “They all listen [to] and obey one amir or one official despite the particularities of each of the different countries, according to their laws and so on.”

Emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood

Al-Helbawi emphasizes that the Brotherhood does not seek confrontation with any regime, though unlike the Salafists, it sees a role in politics for Islam:

The “Brotherhood” does not agree with the saying: “What belongs to Caesar belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God belongs to God.” It believes that everything belongs to God. Therefore, [former Egyptian president] al-Sadat’s saying that “there is no religion in politics and there is no politics in religion” is ridiculous. The “Brotherhood” does not believe this. The call must continue because it is an order from God. There is also a need to participate in political action. The advantage that the “Brotherhood” sees in political action is that its members have been raised in a certain way and they have built a cultural, ideological, and jurisprudential structure that makes them different from those who have not received this education or training in the political field. This is something that is an asset to the people and the nation…

Al-Helbawi is the author of a number of Arabic language books on topics including “Global Strategies in the Afghan War,” “American Politics in the Middle East” and “The Role of Muslim Youth in Reconstruction.” He has also translated works by Imam al-Ghazali (1058-1111) and Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (a leading Muslim Brotherhood ideologue and religious scholar) into English.

In 2008, al-Helbawi organized a meeting between Shaykh al-Qaradawi and a group of rabbis belonging to Neturei Karta (lit. “Guardians of the City”), an anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish movement. The group believes the founding of Israel transformed the Jewish movement into a Zionist nationalist movement, in violation of the Torah (al-Sharq al-Awsat, May 3, 2008). More recently, al-Helbawi accused Israel of foreign intervention in the Egyptian “February 25 Revolution” by destroying a gas pipeline in the hope Egypt’s revolutionaries would be accused of using explosives, discrediting their peaceful protests (al-Alam TV [Tehran], February 7).

This article first appeared in the June 9, 2011 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor

Special Commentary: Egypt’s Lotus Revolution- Scenarios for a New Middle East

Posted on by

Andrew McGregor

February 1, 2011

Jamestown Foundation Special Commentary

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s February 1 announcement that he would step down at the end of his term in September but would not leave Egypt (“I will die on its soil”) seems to indicate Mubarak and his military colleagues are seeking enough time to consolidate the power of the military-security structure that controls Egypt in the face of massive demonstrations calling for political change. His pledge to address corruption and other issues probably comes too late in his 30-year term as president to mollify angry protesters demanding his resignation, exile, or worse.

Lotus RevolutionThe popular uprising in Egypt, whether it succeeds or not, is already guaranteed to mark a turning point in the Middle East’s political and geo-strategic balance.  However, after 58 years of rule under a succession of four Egyptian generals (Naguib, Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak), Egypt’s military-security structure has deep roots – changing this would require something on the scale of the French Revolution.  Many powerful people stand to lose everything should a popular revolt go too far and there are few signs of unrest so far among the more traditional fellahin of rural Egypt. The following scenarios are all directions the current unrest could take, each with great significance for the future of the Middle East:

•    A Military Takeover

While the demonstrations in Cairo and Alexandria have been largely peaceful, the security situation in the strategic Sinai is beginning to collapse, with armed Bedouin assaulting police stations, killing policemen and seizing weapons. This or an upsurge of violence in the cities could be used as justification for taking control. This might discourage other Arab risings initially, but if Mubarak loyalists take over Mubarak’s assured gentle landing in comfortable exile would not endear the new regime with the public and the revolution will only be postponed. This scenario would result in the least damage to Egypt’s official relationship with Israel but could cause strain with the United States which is newly committed to a real democratic transition.  Individuals to watch are Military Intelligence Chief and new Vice-President Umar Sulayman (who may try to hold onto the presidency in the event of a Mubarak resignation), Field Marshal and new Deputy Prime Minister Muhammad Hussein Tantawi, and Armed Forces Chief-of-Staff Lieutenant General  Samy Enan. This scenario could get messy if it was opposed by the public and required military force to impose. The genie of fraternization between the largely conscript army and the demonstrators as witnessed in recent days will be difficult to return to the bottle. A move by junior officers to seize power (as in 1952) cannot be ruled out, but the ethnic dynamic (Arab vs. Turko-Circassian elite) that drove the revolution of 1952 no longer exists.

•    A Military Takeover Followed by a Transition to Democracy

This has been a common pattern in African nations in the last decade, though all too often the coup leader resigns and wins an overwhelming victory at the first “democratic” polls. Hosni Mubarak is not a charismatic leader, but he does control a widespread and pervasive patronage system that has preserved his personal leadership for three decades. If the military-security structure can be assured of the wholesale transfer of this system to a new leader (and member of the elite), Hosni Mubarak suddenly becomes irrelevant – even an impediment to the continued existence of the elite. Gamal Mubarak, without any support base, is finished even if the government returns.

The best analogy here would be the 1985 Sudanese military coup in which General Swar al-Dahab took power only after a popular rising in Sudan ousted President Field Marshal Ja’afar Nimeiri, who went into exile in Egypt. After the restoration of state security and a short transitional period, Swar al-Dahab resigned and allowed free elections (see al-Arabiya, January 20).

•    Mubarak Maintains Power

This scenario is not as unlikely as it is being treated in parts of the international media. The withdrawal of the police from city streets may be part of a strategy to allow the security situation to deteriorate to the point the public will demand the return of law and order, naturally in the person of Mubarak, who would require the support of the army in this scenario. The widely disliked police, who would have the most to lose in any transition of power, would likely support Mubarak. Nevertheless, nothing short of major concessions, the abandonment of the scheme to make Mubarak’s son Gamal his successor and a restoration of some food subsidies (as has been done in Algeria in the face of local protests) would be required to make this work. Real and substantial change would be unlikely, however, and the revolution would again only be postponed.

•    Democratic Elections Introduce a New Government

The heavily entrenched military-security structure that dominates the government and much of the business community will strongly oppose this scenario unless they are assured a sympathetic candidate will win.

•    Islamists Take Control of Egypt through Elections

While many reports suggest a Muslim Brotherhood takeover is imminent, results from the last relatively free elections in which they were able to contend indicate the MB has the support of roughly 20% of the electorate.  The Muslim Brothers’ armed wing was dissolved long ago and there are no indications of the movement turning to violence in the current turmoil. Having committed to a policy of building an Islamic state through grass-roots activism after top-down efforts to seize power in Egypt nearly resulted in the destruction of the movement in the 1960s, the Brothers are in the midst of an ideological dilemma – stay the course and possibly be left behind or ignore the movement’s principles to try and maneuver the movement into a leading position in the effort to overthrow the government.  The Brothers are as likely to split over this issue as they are to become a late player in the uprising. For now, the movement is calling for the installation of the chief of Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court, Farouk Ahmad Sultan, as president, and has affirmed its intention of honoring Egypt’s international treaties (Ikhwanweb.com, February 1).

The Salafist groups in Egypt are committed to their belief citizens should not oppose a Muslim leader and have taken little, if any, part so far in the demonstrations. The Muslim Brothers, on the other hand, did not initially take part in the demonstrations, but have joined them now in an effort to maintain some influence on events.

Though relatively unlikely, an Islamist victory at the polls would lead to three possibilities:

a) Countercoup – The Algerian Scenario: When the FIS appeared to be winning the Algerian general elections in 1991, the Algerian military moved quickly to seize the government with U.S. and French support. The United States may similarly decide Egypt, as the leading nation of the Arab world, is simply too important to leave to Islamists of any stripe.

b) A moderate Islamist government willing to work with the West as well as the East, on the pattern of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (increasingly the Islamist’s model of choice).

c) An Islamist government sacrifices much needed American subsidies to break with the West, renege on the treaties with Israel and provide a haven to extremists. This scenario remains the most unlikely at the moment. While the existing relationship with Israel will be re-examined by almost any new government, a break with the West would have little appeal to most Egyptians.

•    The repeal of Egypt’s Emergency Laws (in force for most of the last three decades) by a new government and/or a security collapse allows Egyptian militants in exile to re-enter Egypt

Egypt’s military and intelligence services are highly likely to survive any transition of power largely intact and will continue to resist the infiltration of foreign-based militants or a local resumption of the ruthless 1990s war between Islamist militants and Egyptian security services that ended with the disruption of the Islamist networks and the expulsion of remaining militant leaders such as Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Returning militants would not find a very warm welcome from Egypt’s existing Islamist factions, most of which have abandoned the concept of seizing power by force.

•    Election of a Secular Government

Egypt’s opposition parties are badly organized, poorly financed and have had little opportunity to build a popular base – hence their general inability to use current uprising to their benefit. Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) is clearly finished in its current incarnation – having relied on rigged elections for too long, it has neglected to maintain a popular base. NDP offices, including their headquarters in Cairo, have been the target of arson attacks. The party does, however, have a strong political machine fueled by patronage and may easily reform under a new name and leadership with few changes to its structure and policies. Former International Atomic Energy Agency chairman Muhammad ElBaradei has returned to Egypt, but many in Egypt know little or nothing about him and he has been no more successful in harnessing the popular anger than other opposition figures.

•    Government Rejection of Change Leads to Armed Revolt

Al-Qaeda is completely out of the picture at the moment and the utter disruption of militant networks by Egypt’s pervasive security services makes it unlikely al-Qaeda will be able to influence events in the short term.  Unlike other Arab states like Yemen and Iraq, the population is largely unarmed, but some elements are now seizing police weapons. However, since Arabization of the military (previously dominated by non-Arab military professionals) most male Egyptians over 20 have completed military service and know how to use weapons.  In the Sinai, where the Bedouin are armed, the police have evacuated large parts of the region.  The Bedouin are now on the offensive, attacking police stations and killing officers to seize more weapons. The low-level rebellion in the strategically important Sinai may be about to explode.

•    Egypt’s Revolt Creates Political Convulsions Across the Arab Middle East

From an internal point of view, most scenarios point to the existing power structure in Egypt making superficial changes in most areas, though it is very likely an new regime will attempt to improve ties with the larger Arab and Muslim world, from which Egypt has been largely estranged for over three decades due to its accommodation with Israel.  The wild card is the degree to which Egypt’s uprising both inspires and feeds from other popular revolts in the Arab world.

Mass demonstrations spread to Khartoum last weekend.  Sudanese President Field Marshal Omar al-Bashir may be at the height of his unpopularity in Sudan despite a massive triumph In recent elections, having lost much of his traditional support as the man who has allowed South Sudan to separate His status as an alleged war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court is an embarrassment even for members of the ruling party. In the event of mass demonstrations in Khartoum, watch for a military provocation on the new border with the South to enable strict security measures in the capital. These type of uprisings are not new in Sudan – Generals Mahmoud Abboud (1964) and Ja’afar Nimeiri (1985) were both removed by popular revolt in the Sudan.

Algeria might follow the Egyptian and Tunisian lead, but the Algiers government has warned such protests will not be tolerated. Nevertheless, there have already been significant demonstrations in Algeria and there are now signs that the Kabylia Berber revolt could restart (Kabyle.com, January 30).   There have been ten attempts at self-immolation so far in protest of the regime (Ennahar [Algiers], January 30). Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) could seek to exploit this violence as many of their bases are in the Kabyle Mountains. Smaller demonstrations and even acts of self-immolation have taken place in Jordan, Yemen and Mauritania. Libya would also appear to be a prime candidate for new protests.

A U.S. pro-democracy stance will have little influence on the protestors – the riot equipment, batons and tear gas of the security forces are all U.S. supplied, as are the F-16 fighter-jets making menacing low passes over Cairo. Egyptians are well aware Washington is the Mubarak regime’s greatest sponsor. However, U.S. influence in the Egyptian officer corps is strong and Egypt must deal carefully with the United States or risk losing important food aid. American aid and subsidies are important to Egypt, which is undergoing a food price crisis that is in large part fuelling the unrest.  A new government could not afford to break with U.S. without losing a major part of its budget.

Israel might have ideological difficulties in coping with a new Egyptian democracy after boasting for many years they were the only democracy in the Middle East. Opposing democracy would be a contradiction in Israeli foreign policy (see their support for the Iranian democracy demonstrations), but the Mubarak dictatorship has been the guarantor of Israeli security as no Arab nation would go to war with Israel without Egypt’s participation.

Any successor to Mubarak will find it extremely difficult to maintain Egypt’s current and highly unpopular level of cooperation with Israel against the Palestinians of Gaza. The best Israel could hope for is a new Egyptian military-security regime that would demand only token changes in the current agreements in hope of a local propaganda victory.

Shaykh Qaradawi Alarms Egypt with Warning of Shiite Imperialism

Posted on by

Andrew McGregor

October 1, 2008

In remarks very similar to recent statements from Egyptian al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, a popular Doha-based Egyptian Islamic scholar and spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has accused Iran of being behind a new wave of Shi’a “imperialism” that threatens the existence of Sunni Islam in Egypt and other Muslim countries. 82-year-old Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a media-savvy religious scholar based in Qatar. Al-Qaradwi is the president of The International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS) and the head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR). He hosts a religious program entitled “Shari’a and Life” on Qatar-based al-Jazeera TV.

Qaradawi 2Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi

In a September 9 interview, al-Qaradawi attacked what he perceived as an Iranian-backed attempt to displace Sunni Islam with Shi’ism: “I don’t accept that any Arab or foreign country should attack Iran, but I don’t accept that Iran should attack any Arab country, especially seeing as some Iranians have imperial dreams, which is wrong and dangerous… What is happening is organized, an invasion… It is not a religious invasion but a political one. Iran is trying to impose itself on those around it and we refuse to follow a new form of neo-colonialism, be it Iranian or any other” (al-Masry al-Youm, September 9). Describing the Shia as “heretics” (mubtadioun), the shaykh alleged that well-funded missionary cadres are “invading Egypt,” as well as Sudan, Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Malaysia and Indonesia (Al-Ahram Weekly, September 25 – October 5). Iran responded by suggesting the cleric had come under “pressure from extremists” (Gulf Times [Doha], September 17). The remarks came at a time when tensions between Sunnis and Shias have grown due to the civil conflict in Iraq, Iran’s continuing nuclear program and the suggestion by some Western analysts that Iran is promoting the creation of a “Shiite Crescent” across the Arab Middle East.

The shaykh’s views on Shi’a “imperialism” have encountered widespread opposition in the Arab and Islamic world. A Kuwaiti commentator suggested al-Qaradawi was trying to mobilize the Sunnis in a war against the Shia and asked, “Would anything happen to Egypt if 100,000 Egyptians became Shi’is? And vice versa, would anything happen to Iran if the same number of Iranians became Sunni? Nothing would happen as long as brotherly relations prevail among different sects” (al-Watan [Kuwait], September 24). Shi’a Muslims form a majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Bahrain. They form sizable minorities in Saudi Arabi, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Reaction was particularly negative in Lebanon, where al-Qaradawi claimed Hezbollah was trying to leverage popularity won in its 2006 victory over Israel to convert Sunnis to Shi’ism. Shaykh Fathi Yakan, head of the Islamic Action Front (Jabhat al-Amal al-Islami – an umbrella group of Lebanese Sunni Islamists allied with the Shiite Hezbollah), condemned the remarks of the “dear cleric”: “The most serious blow we received this week was a sectarian one dealt to us by a dear cleric, a blow which could have been deadly. We hoped that he would not have raised this issue. We hoped that the revered cleric would have referred in his talk to the increasing number of Jews coming to the Land of Al-Kinanah [Egypt]” (al-Manar TV, September 24). Though not referring to al-Qaradawi specifically, Shaykh Na’im Qasim, deputy secretary general of the Lebanese Hezbollah, saw an American hand behind efforts to create a sectarian divide in Islam: “This sedition has recently been bearing the U.S. signature because America wants to ignite the area under the slogan of the Sunni-Shi’i sedition with the aim of infiltrating it, especially since it found that the strength of the unity between Sunnis and Shi’is cannot be confronted” (al-Manar TV, September 24). Hezbollah chief Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah suggested the Egyptian shaykh should speak out against Christian missionary activity in the Islamic world instead of identifying Shiites as the problem. Fadlallah also accused al-Qaradawi of the committing the sin of fitna (creating discord between Muslims) in an interview with Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai Al-Amm (AP, September 24).

Leading members of the influential International Union of Muslim Scholars, headed by al-Qaradawi, have been highly critical of the shaykh’s allegations, describing them as divisive and embarrassing. With Shia members of the group threatening mass resignation, a meeting has been set for November to discuss the problem (Al-Ahram Weekly, September 25 – October 5).

Many of al-Qaradawi’s remarks were directed at Egypt, which has a negligible Shiite population, placed at less than one per cent: “When I left Egypt 47 years ago, it had not a single Shiite and now there are many… who took them to Shiism? Egypt is the cradle of Sunnism and the country of Al-Azhar.” Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the Islamic world’s leading school of Islamic studies, recognizes Shi’ism as a legitimate form of Islam and carries courses in Shiite studies. Al-Qaradawi has often found himself at odds with the institution and its leader, Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawi. Ironically, al-Azhar mosque (which later grew into the university) was founded as a Shiite institution during the period of Shiite Fatimid rule in Egypt (969-1171 A.D.).

Al-Qaradawi’s remarks reinforce an apparent fear amongst Egypt’s leadership that they are subject to a Shiite infiltration designed to depose the regime. Islamic scholars have been asked to educate security forces in Shi’a ideology and strategy, while the Minister of Religious Endowments recently warned, “We won’t allow the existence of a Shiite tide in Egyptian mosques” (AFP, September 23). In a controversial interview in 2006, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak attacked Shiites as disloyal; “Most of the Shi’a are loyal to Iran and not to the countries they are living in” (al-Arabiya TV, April 8, 2006).

A leading Egyptian jurist and Islamic scholar, Tariq al-Bishri, proclaimed “This fascism in the name of the Sunni majority against Shiites is the most dangerous thing for the Islamic nation because it pits Muslims against each other instead of against the invaders of their lands” (al-Dustur [Cairo], September 20). Prominent Saudi lawyer Amin Tahir Bediwi announced he will bring a lawsuit against al-Qaradawi in Qatar (The Peninsula [Qatar], September 29). A second lawsuit has been launched by Shi’a activists in Qatar, demanding al-Qaradawi be stripped of his Qatari citizenship and deported to Egypt (Al-Ahram Weekly, September 25 – October 5).

Al-Qaradawi has used his internet site this month to accuse Shiites of the forbidden practice of bid’a (innovation in religion): “They slap faces, strike chests until they bleed in commemoration of the death of Imam Al-Hussein (the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson)… They also do things when they visit the graves of the Prophet’s offspring like invoking their help instead of Allah’s” (Islam Online, September 25). The shaykh also used his website to line up a series of Shiite scholars who announced they were “satisfied” with the shaykh’s “clarification” that Shiites are indeed Muslims (Islam Online, September 20). Nevertheless, al-Qaradawi has continued his attacks on Iran and Shi’ism, telling an Arab daily that Iranian money is behind the spread of Shi’ism; “Money definitely plays a role but I cannot say that every person who backs Iran has been paid by them and I cannot accuse everyone of this. There are people who were paid and continue to be paid and there is shuttling between them and Iran. This is known.” (Al-Sharq al-Awsat, September 25). In a second interview with al-Masry al-Youm, al-Qaradawi declared, “I do not care and I am not shaken by this stir. I made this statement to answer to the dictates of my conscience and religion and responsibility… I am trying to pre-empt the threat before it gets worse. If we let Shiites penetrate Sunni societies, the outcome won’t be praiseworthy. The presence of Shiites in Iraq and Lebanon is the best evidence of instability” (al-Masry al-Youm, September 23).

 

This article first appeared in the October 1, 2008 issue of the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Focus