The Muslim Brotherhood and Voting
If one wants to get a more realistic picture of how the Muslim Brotherhood and its international legacy organizations view voting and the democratic process than the usual platitudes of their public discourse, it is well worth reading the Guide to Voting in Islam,posted by the Muslim Association of Britain.
This document and commentary on its content was first posted on the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, available for a free subscription.
Because the Koran makes no distinction between the state and religion, voting itself becomes, as one British Imam is quoted in the document as saying, a form of jihad:
I consider Muslim political participation, especially in a non-Muslim country, as a form of jihad. This is our country and it would be foolish not to participate in the political processes which eventually shape our future and that of Islam. I support marching in the streets to raise awareness about certain issues. However, if we really want to change the status-quo then we have to influence those who walk the corridors of power. Muslims need not only to vote but put forward Muslim candidates in all the mainstream and serious independent parties. We need to be represented or be present at the tables around which policies are discussed, made and agreed.
The Guide to Voting offers grudging support for alliances with non-Muslims if the alliance is for the good of the Muslim population. Totally absent is the consideration of what is good for the country in which the Muslim individual is voting. This is made explicitly clear in a quote by Abdur Raheem Green, Dawah Administrator of the Central Mosque of London included in the Guide:
It has long been my position that any type of participation in democracy is a type of approval of that system. I have no doubt that democracy is antithetical to Islam. However, having read and listened to the sayings of many scholars on this issue, and being faced with the reality of a growing Muslim population here in the UK, who for all intents and purposes consider this their home, it has become clear to me that we must participate in every aspect of society as much as possible to ensure our rights and continued existence and well being in this society. This participation most certainly includes voting for whichever party or candidate best serves the needs and interests of the UK and indeed world wide Muslim population. This does not mean approval or acceptance of the ideal of secular democracy, but the intention is to use the means and avenues available to benefit Muslims and the communities we reside in.
That seems pretty straightforward to me. There is not a commitment to the fundamental concept of freedom and multi-party democracy. There is solely a commitment to establishing an Islamic state, and if that can be advanced through participating in elections, then so be it.
This ties in with the calls of the MB legacy groups in the United States to get Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective Islamic to describe radical Islamist terrorists.
The charge is led by Muneer Fareed of ISNA, who says that “I think this is just criminality, fair and square. We should just call them criminals. You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine. But adding the word ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islamic’ certainly doesn’t help our cause as Americans.”
But therein lies the rub, because it is clear from the Guide, and many other writings, that the MB’s primary loyalty is not to whatever country they live in, but to the establishment of an Islamist state. And the terrorists define themselves as acting on behalf of Islam, and embrace the word.
So on whose behalf is Fareed and ISNA speaking? One must always ask that when dealing with the MB.
commenting closed for this article
New Insights on MB Convictions in Egypt One Step on the Road to Defeating the Islamists
Thanks to bring this excellent material to us Doug. Very good job. However, I would like to moderate a little bit your argument.
Indeed, when talking about salafism (because that’s what we’re talking about here), and more specifically salafism in the West, it is important to ALWAYS differentiate between the 3 main currents: First is “Jihadi salafism”, which is the most violent form of salafism, the one adopted by terrorists such as London or Madrid bombers. Second, is “predicative salafism” which advocates for a very religious life (on the Wahabi model), and eventually promotes the hijra (migration toward pure Islamic states, preferably in the Middle East). Predicative Salafis refuse any political involvement. Finally, there is “political salafism” which is inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood and proposes to promote Islam in the West, and accept the political game in order to defend the rights of Muslims.
“Jihadi Salafism” is terrorism, and therefore must be condemned and eradicated.
“Predicative Salafism” has nocive consequences on the integration of Muslim populations in the West, but remains peaceful and therefore does not represent a direct threat.
“Political Salafism”, finally, has a good side and a bad side. Obviously, the extremism of Muslim Brothers can be seen as dangerous. However, in the case of France, for instance, the apolitization (or the disinterest and non participation in the political game by Muslim population) has been identified as one of the main reason for the rise of salafism (including jihadi salafism) in the banlieues.
Hence, my point is that the politization of Muslim minorities should be encouraged, not discouraged. Therefore, it is importante to favor the creation/development of parties that defend Muslim population with a moderate discourse in order to counter salafism.
— Tom Apr 23, 09:20 #
“I have no doubt that democracy is antithetical to Islam”
Tell that to the Iraqis.
— Steve Apr 24, 06:15 #
The goal of Islam is to establish a global empire, subject to and espousing ONLY its philosophy. Chosen methodology used in furtherance of this self-stated goal is conquest, which adopts a variety of faces – ranging from roadside bombs to word games to forced injection into non-theocratic governments through political veins. Contemporary events reflect, among other characteristics, its parasitical nature where Webster defines parasite as “one who lives at the expense of another or others without making any useful contribution or return.” It seems abundantly clear that this definition can be overlaid onto the collective Muslim presence in this country and produce an exact match.
— Gigi Apr 25, 04:01 #
In support of my above remarks, I submit the following as a reasonable litmus test for objectively determining the usefulness of a Muslim community-at-large within a democracy:
Q: Does such a community contribute positively to a democratic economy?
A: No. Muslims are separatists and bypass existing banking systems through the establishment of Islamic financing institutions governed by Shari’a law.
Q: Does such a community contribute positively to critical sectors of a democratic economy, such as housing?
A: No. Islamic Housing Cooperatives are established to bypass existing real estate practice, including mortgage lending and payment of interest. In addition, personal Federal tax exemption is claimed for mortgage expense even though such expense is structured essentially as rent by the Cooperative and zero interest is paid by the individual homeowner.
Q: Does such a community contribute positively to existing institutions within a democracy, such as public education?
A: No. To the contrary, private facilities are established for educational instruction. Existing public instituions are utilized as strategic mechanisms for the garnering, organization and advancement of pro-Islamic ideology.
Q: Does such a community positively contribute to a democratic form of government?
A: No. To the contrary, every effort is made to redirect democracies in such a way as to provide the greatest benefit to the Muslim community-at-large and the global political goals of Islam.
— Gigi Apr 25, 07:15 #
The comments here address the question should Muslim community participate political process or not. It is a non-question, because according to current laws and constitutions of civilized world, there is no way to stop them.
The only questions are what to expect from that participation, and is there a way to make that participation constructive.
However, there is another question about the immigrant laws. There is no rule or principle to force any country to accept everyone who wants to enter it.
— Drazen Gemic Apr 25, 07:29 #
Certainly the freedom of political participation is a cornerstone of civilized democracy. Nevertheless, when that freedom is abused by separatists with no nationalist loyalty and used with intent to undermine and/or destroy any sovereign nation’s political structure, as is the case here, one has to question the wisdom of extending carte blanche participation. A stance of watchfulness is prudent for any democratic nation that wishes to continue in the freedoms Islam seeks to destroy.
— Gigi Apr 25, 10:33 #
An example how a peaceful and unthreatening form of Islam might look like:
Anyone ever heard about the Bahais, once defined as a “Post-Islamic world religion”? They originated in Persia, having a hard time nowadays in Iran and Egypt.
— rich Apr 26, 12:52 #