Harry's Place

Calling your organisation after Cordoba isn’t exactly subtle! The name alone should’ve rung alarm bells for anyone dealing with Islamic groups (which I assume includes many people in Tower Hamlets council)

“Kaboom” Tamimi can sometimes be caught at his London “Book Shop” at the north end of Edgware Road. He is an over front man for Hamas (another branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) and an outspoken anti-semite. He played an important part in the invitation to this country of Hamas’ Ghazi Hamad after the staged release of BBC Journalist Alan johnston (Johnston was kidnapped by the Hamas backed Mumtaz Dagmoush in the first place). Its a disgrace that Tamimi is allowed to stay in thius country – let alone as being a publicly funded speaker.

Rostam,

I think “Kaboom” Tamimi is a British citizen.

I seem to remember Anas Altikriti was a Respect candidate for somewhere in Yorkshire wasn’t he?
But aren’t he and Tamimi claim credit for getting Abu Hamza out of Finsbury Park Mosque?

Rather oddly I see George Galloway has taken to describing Abu Hamza as a “Political Prisoner”

They do.

The great MB strategy is to go round saying

“You think we’re bad? Back us and you’ll get worse”

In some ways, it is better to have people who want to introduce an Iranian style regime, initially in the Middle East, than people who are going to blow themselves up on public transport. The problem is, the worldview of the MB is only marginally different from Al Qaedaists – which is why you get MBers segueing into Al Qaeda.

That said, as long as the MB don’t commit crimes, they have a right to plough their own furrow.

My point is that, instead of fighting these people, left wing organisations are partnering with them. And, so it seems, local government officials are handing them 19K worth of public money.

i’ve noticed recently that the promoters of these people (the usual suspects) have taken to trying to draw a line between these people who are “not violent islamists” on the grounds that they do not urge attacks on civilians “in this country”.
Similar to those who appeased Hamza,Bakri ets on the grounds that because of the covenant of security,they promised to behave in this country.

Seriously, still, after writing about this for years, I really have no idea why there’s such enthusiasm for these vicious sectarians.

With some people it is just ignorance – the Cordoba Foundation credibly presents itself (on its website) as being all about interfaith dialogue, and so on. Obviously, being fascists, they can’t help but give themselves away in real life. By inviting Al Muhaj/Hizb types to their public meetings, for example.

To some extent, they also rely on orientalism. I think there’s a strong strain within British liberal thinking, which sees muslims, darkly, through a bar of Fry’s Turkish Delight. They think of muslims as noble savages, and applaud when they find one who is ’semi-civilised’. Because that’t their conception of muslims, they only really recognise people who meet that stereotype as ‘authentic’. Muslim liberals are just dismissed as ‘unrepresentative’ or Uncle Toms.

A further factor is the organisational ability that the MB/Jamaat organisations have. They’re far more efficient than the majority, who aren’t following an Islamist path

Then, additionally, there’s also the role played by the Conflicts Forum types: who genuinely do believe that the MB represents the (or at least *a*) future for the Islamic world: and think that we ought to be building bridges with them, in preparation for that day.

Tim,

Before you start attacking everyone as “the usual suspects,” you may wish to read Joshua Muravchik and Charles Szrom’s article, in the latest issue of Commentary, a magazine most known these days for presenting a neoconservative view point.

Mikey,

• Does it both espouse democracy and practice democracy within its own structures?
• Does it eschew violence in pursuit of its goals?
• Does it condemn terrorism?
• Does it advocate equal rights for minorities?
• Does it advocate equal rights for women?
• Does it accept a pluralism of interpretations within Islam?

Seem to be reasonable corollaries.
Certainly ones which the usual supects are prepared to overlook.

“To some extent, they also rely on orientalism. I think there’s a strong strain within British liberal thinking, which sees muslims, darkly, through a bar of Fry’s Turkish Delight. They think of muslims as noble savages, and applaud when they find one who is ’semi-civilised’. Because that’t their conception of muslims, they only really recognise people who meet that stereotype as ‘authentic’.”

I think this is a penetrating point and one I wish was more widely recognised. This kind of orientalism strikes me as incredibly virulent in some quarters at the moment and borders on racism.

That’s a very interesting article Mikey, and not a bad framework.

The real difficulty is that it is difficult to distinguish genuine moderate and post-Islamists from those like the Cordoba Foundation, who are posing as moderates.

Personally: I think that it is probably inevitable that Islamist groups will come to power, or attempt to, in parts of the Arab world (but probably not in South Asia). In theory, I’d like to see them come to power, fail, and be replaced by something else (perhaps liberal democracy: why not?). But in reality, I think the model will be more like Gaza (failure, militarisation of society, sectarian violence etc) or Algeria (the same, only much much worse).

I also don’t think that you’re going to see moderate Islamist groups come to power, in the short term. The AKP I think is an exception: forced into moderation by the threat of a coup, and the fact that the entire Turkish establishment is secular nationalist.

Islamist groups have a really big block which prevents them from moderating. They’re tied to a theology which is not poltiically moderate, and it not easy to reconcile with equality, democracy or human rights, in any strong sense. My view has always been that it is possible for a religious person to ’square the circle’ by picking and choosing the interpretations which fit the politically preferred outcome.

However, one of the ex-Islamists pointed out the flaw in my thesis: which is that it isn’t *consistent* to pick and mix your interpretations. There aren’t “liberal” and “reactionary” Hadith recounters. There are some “liberal” Hadiths and some “reactionary” ones: but they may be written by the same person. So, a theologically consistent person will baulk at simply cherry picking. That’s why a sincere Islamist won’t shove his faith/politics into the procrustean bed of human rights.

I’m not particularly optimistic.

But that is over there: and this is here. My key question is: why do liberals allow themselves to be taken in by these groups: whose focus is primarily domestic, as we can see from this “Debate”?

I also think that the Liberal/left apologists for groups such as these are prepared to sacrifice the rights of those in the British Muslim community who disagree with Jamaat or the MB,either for an easy life,out of ignorance or from “anti imperialist” posturing.Plus a dose of the Orientalism that David describes.

When Abua Hamza and his ilk took over a mosque,it was not white Guardian readers who suffered but those his thugs beat up,who spent years trying to get the authorities to do something.
(plus those of course killed by his associates in Yemen and elsewhere)
When Tower Hamlets supports a caliphate group,its at the expense of other Muslims.

My key question is: why do liberals allow themselves to be taken in by these groups: whose focus is primarily domestic, as we can see from this “Debate”?

Perhaps because they feel that such support affords them an additional layer of cosmopolitan sophistication.

They may also believe they’re adding ‘balance’ to a debate that they no doubt think is dominated by “zionist-owned-media” and therefore skewed.

“Cordoba Foundation”, eh?

There’s one over here called “The Dialogue Foundation” which purportedly seeks to engage in interfaith parleys.

It is turkish and appears to be yet another Mo-Bro front.

They gave a presentation at a prestigious downtown hotel last year attended by various liberal rabbis, Quakers and humanities profs.

Very patchouli.

The public was asked to pay 20$ entrance fee, which I did, and this with the determination to get my money’s worth.

The speaker, a supremacist muslim “cleric”, informed us that Turkey was home to no less than 19…count’em…19 different civilisations!

When he repeated the claim for a third time and then a fourth time, I politely raised my hand, was given permission to speak, and so asked; “You say that Turkey was home to 19 different civilisations over the years, but would you happen to know if, on the outside chance, any of ‘em were turkish?”

Money well spent.

David,

I am glad you liked the article in Commentary. It is a shame that as some people simply dismiss what might come out of that journal as “Zionist neocon” rubbish, however if they took the time to read it, they may find themselves agreeing with some of what is said.

I heard that Commentary and Dissent were merging

dysentery!

Actually, I subscribe to both of them!

My favourite Annie Hall quote

What was interesting in the 1950s to mid 1960s, Commentary and Dissent had a number of similar writers, or at least writers that would hang out in the same parties etc together. Norman Podheretz, as editor of the former, referred to them as “the family” and Irving Howe a editor of the latter, referred to them as “The New York intellectuals.” In effect they were talking about the same thing. In October 1968, Howe wrote a fantastic article that was published in Commentary on the New York Intellectuals. That whole crew seemed to write articles more for each other than the general public that subscribed to their journals. In this sense the Annie Hall line about the two journals merging is not out of line.

These days of course, things are widely different. Podhoretz “broke ranks” with many of these people as his own political position turned increasingly towards that what Michael Harrington labeled “neoconservatives” in Dissent in 1973. Podhoretz launched a blistering attack on the New Left and the “counter culture.” By the time me of the 1980 election, Podhoretz had no qualms voting for Ronald Reagan. And, as anyone can see in the latest issue of Commentary, Podhoretz is still advocating the the bombing of Iran.

David T: “both parties wish to create a nightmarish Iranian style theocracy”.

That would appear a bit unlikely, given that the Iranian state is based on the Velayat-e Faqih theory which is specific to Shia Islam, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood and HT are of course Sunnis.

But this is par for the course with David T, who a few weeks ago was assuring us that the UK Islamic Mission, Islamic Forum Europe and Dawatul Islam (all connected to Jamaat-e-Islami) are “Muslim Brotherhood linked groups”.

Still, why bother distinguishing between different varieties of political Islam? Sunnis, Shias, Khomeinites, followers of Hasan al-Banna – at the end of the day they’re all Islamofascists aren’t they?

Anon, you might care about the vagueries that deliniate Pentecostals, Southern Baptists and Calvinists, but at the end of the day, the notion that “a Christian fundamentsalist evangelical theocracy” would be a hellish place is a fair comment regardless.

One need only read HuT’s constitution to know that the type of government they envision has plenty in common with the clerical fascism of Iran.

Or perhaps you’d like to put your money where your mouth is and list the substantive political (not theological) differences between Iran and the sort of state HuT have in mind.

There are some “liberal” Hadiths and some “reactionary” ones: but they may be written by the same person. So, a theologically consistent person will baulk at simply cherry picking.

Well, indeed, so if one refuses to pick choice cherries, isn’t the “consistent” alternative irresolvable confusion? Or, to be nice, and this is one way out for whole-orchard types, maybe harmless mystical wonder? Either would be better than grim prescriptive fundamentalists, who in truth are often fond of picking the most poisonous berries rather than anything sweet.

Anyway, who wouldn’t want to pick cherries? What a nice occupation. Many religious people do just this every day, in acts if not words. Much to the frustration of Islamists, amongst other freaks.

*

Bob Lambert too uses the “we saved Finsbury Park” argument in this newsletter from the Cordoba Foundation itself (see page 6).

The “us or worse” argument advanced by Islamists and their allies (witting and otherwise) is worth resisting, out of principle for committed secular democrats, but above all on practical grounds, including those of the give-and-take crowd who claim to be realistic.

Tikriti et al are plainly part of the problem, not a distasteful but possibly useful solution. They openly use the bombers as political tools to advance their agenda. Let’s not forget that Tikriti said this just before the first anniversary of 7/7:

“The UK foreign policy is the main reason behind the growing sense of angry and frustration among young British Muslims,” he contended.

“We told the government it is your foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, which would lead to radicalization and extremism.”

In other words, change your policies to suit the bombers, or expect more violence, at home as well as abroad.

It’s amazing how many people fell for this grievance line. Some still do.

Transparently sectarian Islamists do not deserve a penny from any domestic British public purse. They have nothing to offer that is worth buying. Indifference is the best they should expect from the authorities, and indeed all of us who do not share their agenda.

When Abu Hamzas do crop up, they can be arrested, charged, tried, and, if found guilty, imprisoned, as we have seen. There is no need to aid political profiteers, directly or indirectly, as part of the process. Better to shun them, really, to underline the point.

“The real difficulty is that it is difficult to distinguish genuine moderate and post-Islamists from those like the Cordoba Foundation, who are posing as moderates.”

Doesn’t that answer this …

“Why do liberals allow themselves to be taken in by these groups?”

Given the vogue for voluntary sector partnership, it strikes me that its becoming increasingly easy for organisations to pass themselves off as any number of things in order to access funding from well meaning public sector organisations looking for that all important ‘reach’ into disengaged communities.

Possibly the reason why Tower Hamlets, or the LDA say, end up chucking money at ropey organisations. Less to do with some leftist connivance, more acts of ignorance by public authorities seeking some sort of credible options amid a confusing range of potential voluntary and community partners.

Chuck in some all too common poor contract management and there you have it.

A more mundane but plausible reason perhaps.

The centrepiece of HT’s propaganda is the need to restore the caliphate. What has that got to do with Shia Islam, in its Khomeinite or any other form?

I remember a couple of years ago some US rightwinger posting on Harry’s Place and accusing the Socialist Workers Party of supporting North Korea. They’re all commies, he presumably reasoned, so the SWP must necessarily be fans of Kim Jong-il.

David T and Brett Lock demontrate just about the same level of ignorance about political Islam.

When we arrive at that point in our history, I guess that The Kalif and the Thirteenth Iman will have a fight, and the winner takes all

Anon/Bob Pitt

I’m not talking about HuT: I’m talking about the Muslim Brotherhood.

And the Muslim Brotherhood is proposing an Iranian style theocracy: as you’ll see if you look at the linked article which outlines their “Blueprint”. You’ll see that the comparison with the Iranian regime is made in that news report.

The key similarity is that the Muslim Brotherhood has come out in favour of a Council of Guardians style system, which will evidently have the power to prevent “un-Islamic” legislation being passed.

In short: that’s the non-execution of “apostates”, the legal equality of women and members of other faiths, and so on, that they’ll be able to block – even if the population votes for it.

IFE is the umbrella organisation that brings together both the Jamaat and the Ikwaan streams.

Why are you shilling for them? You’re supposed to be a socialist?

Shia clerics have traditionally stayed out of politics; prefering to comment from the sidelines.

There’s an argument that Khomeni’s break with that tradition resulted from exposure to, and synthesis with, Qutb’s ideas.

Sunni Islamism has always been run by amateurs (i.e. non clerics). Who haven’t (yet) worked out that if you try to rule in the name of god, and mess up, people don’t simply turn against you, but against religion generally.

That’s one of the reasons I’m in favour of not preventing Islamist regimes coming to power. They’ve got to fail before they’re discredited.

As I’m sure you’d agree, Bob: good socialist that you are!

DT your understanding and outlook on Islamism has progressed much in the past three years. One simply needs to read some of your old posts to see how your thinking has changed.

But I fail to understand why you doggedly cling to your own unique bit of Orientalist thinking … you state:

In some ways, it is better to have people who want to introduce an Iranian style regime, initially in the Middle East, than people who are going to blow themselves up on public transport.

How so?

I presume you to be a liberal – so why is it better to consige close to 200 million peoples to Islamist Fascism in the Middle East to avoid putting at risk the lives of a comparatively few Westerners who will be subjected to terror attacks launched by the same facists.

To begin with this is a fallacious trade-off. Islamists will attack the West far more effectively once they have conquered the Middle East. The Islamic Republic doesnt need nuclear tipped ballistic missles that can target all major European capitals if its aganda was limited to regional hegemony.

To any Middle Eastern liberal your line of thinking smacks of a unsubtle form of the same Orientalism that you deride by placing a higher value on the lives of Westerners.

Not a very enlightened view is it?

If you want to fight the Islamist ideology at all then the most important arena in which Islamism has to be confronted is the Middle East.

Given the vogue for voluntary sector partnership, it strikes me that its becoming increasingly easy for organisations to pass themselves off as any number of things in order to access funding from well meaning public sector organisations looking for that all important ‘reach’ into disengaged communities.

Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s what it was.

I used to think that partnership with the vol. sector was a good idea!!!

Habibi:

No problems with cherry pickers or those who go down the “mystical” route to avoid the problems with doctrine.

Its just that the cherry pickers can’t do it authoritatively. They’re like the trendy vicar or rabbis who gab their way around the biblical position on (say) homosexuality.

The retreat into mysticism is absolutely fine: but they mystics tend not really to want to run the state.

meantime you are all missing a great documentary on sex changes in the Islamic Republic … its on now on BBC2.

I was interested to read in the papers over the weekend two snippets from the Islamic heartlands. One was that a cleric in Saudi Arabia has decided that it is not unIslamic to allow women to drive cars, it is purely a question of social control ie men would riot in the streets if they saw a lady driving a car. The other thing was that the Pakistani’s exceeded themselves in blocking YouTube. In their eagerness to not allow anti-Islamic properganda to pollute the computerscreens of Pakistan, they ended up jamming the whole world. Now the reason I find these cheering is that it shows, despite their best endevours, the Islamic establishment cannot keep the modern world at bay for ever.

Incidentally, I chuckled when I read that 50 young men in Saudi Arabia had just been arrested for flirting. Not that that is funny, but we went to see ‘The Mikado’ on Sunday at the Coliseum, and as opera buffs will know, flirting is actually a capital offence in the story and Ko-Ko is sentenced to death for the crime of flirting. I hope that the young men in Saudi Arabia are not flogged or have any bits of themselves chopped off though.

Rostam

“How so?”

What I say is limited to the UK. I think that if it were possible to divert a significant number of jihadists away from trying to murder British citizens – their neighbours – into relatively less dangerous Muslim Brotherhood activism, then that would be worth considering.

In fact, I don’t think that’s the effect that chumming up with the MB will have. I think it will encourage more jihadism.

As far as the Middle East is concerned: governments should pursue all options open to them. But western liberals, socialists and progressives should give fraternal (or sororial) support to their counterparts in the area: against the local dictator, and the dictatorship that the Islamists would install in its place.

PS: Get that, Bobby? I’m talking about you!!!

you can get a permit from the Morality Police to wear womens clothes.
Only when pre op though.

Little off topic but interesting … having watched “Transexual in Iran” I now see why Ahmadinejad claimed that there were no homosexuals in the Islamic Republic. As the program shows in the Islamic Republic homosexuals have two choices, they can either get a sex change or be executed …. thats the type of depraved liberal reason that Islamists both Khomienist and MB are offering …

Gay Islamists of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your balls …

I haven’t seen the Programme about transexuals in Iran yet, although I have recorded it, but I read an interview with one of the people featured in it on the BBC website. He made the point that although Homosexuality is considered ‘deviant’ and specifically outlawed in the Koran, gender change surgery is not. How strange that the Angel Gabriel failed to appreciate that in 1,400 years time medical science would have progressed to such a sophisticated pitch that men can become women! Makes you wonder about predestination!

“drop Dr Wahid, whose legal organisation wants to replace democracy with an Islamic state, or lose the funding”

Unfortunately the Muslims these days are getting it both ways: ‘the lies about Muslims unable to debate in an intellectual manner and respond only using violence’, and ‘we are not willing to debate with you because you disagree with our paradigm’.

Is it just me or is it all of us who think that a debate is meant to be between two opposing view points.

As far as the point about loosing funding, well that just seems to come with the weather these days, althought I was surprised that the response was not like lets invade and enforce our views such and such country because they differ with us over our civilised views and we know whats best for these backward barbarians who need to be civalised every now and then. Such supremacist views are thrown in our face daily, be it by the media or the politicians.

It seems to me that blogs such as this seem to assume that the only good Muslim is a DEAD ONE, either that or they need to be Baptised in the temple of Secular Democracy, are we headed for a British version of the Spanish inquisition!!

Finally in Islam, politics is not about ‘ends justify the means’ where the more an individual lies, misconstrues, deceives the public – the more he or she is seen as worthy or capable of holding a political position.

So lets debate issues in a sincere way, and let the ordinary people like myself and others decide for our selves the rights and wrongs of a particular political position or point of view, rather than slandering and character assasinating an individual before the debate is even begun, like calling one of them a racist and comparing with a racist organisation like the BNP.

Homosexuality is considered ‘deviant’ and specifically outlawed in the Koran, gender change surgery is not. How strange that the Angel Gabriel failed to appreciate that in 1,400 years time medical science would have progressed to such a sophisticated pitch that men can become women!

Lest we forget the Archangel Gabriel was a bit of a Gender Bender him(her)self

“In Talmud Yoma 77a, however, it is stated that Gabriel once fell into disgrace “for not obeying a command exactly as given, I remained for a while outside the heavenly Curtain.” During this 21 day period, the guardian angel of Persia, Dobiel, acted as Gabriel’s proxy.”

interesting that s/he picked out the prophet moham as the recepient of the message …. but then again when I think of how OBL has always sought to emulate moham in every aspect … I think of OBL’s carefully groomed feminine features and its all begins to fit together …. yup there are no homosexuals amongst the leaders of Islam just as there were no homosexuals in the leadership of the NSDAP …

Finally in Islam, politics is not about ‘ends justify the means’ where the more an individual lies, misconstrues, deceives the public – the more he or she is seen as worthy or capable of holding a political position.

Ahh … Mohammad Nasser, I think you are the deciever here, for in Islam as any learned ulema will tell you the ‘ends justify the means’ and any lie, dissimulation, deception is worthy as long as it leads to the one and only end …. the domination of the world entire by Islam … have you forgotten … Taqiyya … was it not your namesake who said “He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.”

Meanwhile back in Tehran, this is what the crowds in the streets are chanting.

Islamic Rule. We Don’t Want It!We Don’t Want It!

You can see the YouTube video and background to what triggered the riot here.

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2008/02/tehran-antanti-riot-police-clash-with.html

David T wrote My key question is: why do liberals allow themselves to be taken in by these groups:

Well, because all too many are faux liberals, their agenda isn’t kosher, classical liberalism; that’s simply a facade. Their real agenda is something close variation of Chomskyism; a really rather nasty ideology. Orwell had the measure of the buggers yonks ago.

David T: “I’m not talking about HuT: I’m talking about the Muslim Brotherhood.”

David T in fact referred explicitly to both the Muslim Brotherhood and HT: “both parties wish to create a nightmarish Iranian style theocracy”.

David T: “And the Muslim Brotherhood is proposing an Iranian style theocracy: as you’ll see if you look at the linked article which outlines their ‘Blueprint’. You’ll see that the comparison with the Iranian regime is made in that news report. The key similarity is that the Muslim Brotherhood has come out in favour of a Council of Guardians style system, which will evidently have the power to prevent ‘un-Islamic’ legislation being passed.”

Even the conservative elements in the Brotherhood, who were responsible for pushing through the proposal for a Higher Ulama Council (while the more liberal leaders were locked up by Mubarak), are emphatic that it would have only an advisory role. Its intended purpose is to act as a democratic counterweight to the pro-regime ulama at al-Azhar. This falls some way short of a proposal for an Iranian style theocracy.

See for example Marc Lynch’s analysis:
http://www.brandeis.edu/crown/publications1/author/lynch.html

David T: “IFE is the umbrella organisation that brings together both the Jamaat and the Ikwaan streams.”

IFE is a split from Da’watul Islam and is linked to Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh. It is not connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

David T wrote My key question is: why do liberals allow themselves to be taken in by these groups:

Because they hear the name Cordoba and imagine some orientalist fantasy of the golden age of al-Andalus and naievely believe that, at heart, all people are good intentioned, and these guys are only trying to bridge the gap and dialogue with us. Foolish – go read up on the Martyrs of Cordoba for instance to see some inter-faith dialogue…

Even the conservative elements in the Brotherhood, who were responsible for pushing through the proposal for a Higher Ulama Council (while the more liberal leaders were locked up by Mubarak), are emphatic that it would have only an advisory role. Its intended purpose is to act as a democratic counterweight to the pro-regime ulama at al-Azhar. This falls some way short of a proposal for an Iranian style theocracy.

Anon

You are FoS and you just waste time with your posturing and semantics. If you know (as you claim you do) the first thing about the politics of the MB then you know that the MB political philiosophy has always dictated that the leadership ask for what is realistically possible under the present circumsances. There is no question that the MB is working towards a complete theocratic state where teh Ulema will rule unhindered by anything other than their own interprtation of Sharia.

So dont waste time here with pointless Tariq Ramadan style theoretic posturing.

The MB proudly proclaims that it “seeks to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for the ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community and state”

Anon

And from that Marc Lynch piece:

“Abdel Monem Said Aly described it as a blueprint for Iranian-style religious rule, while the Op-ed pages were filled with columns lambasting the MB for its seeming retreat from democratic convictions”

Remember the context within which this blueprint emerged. The MB’s strategy in Egyptian politics and abroad has been to present itself as a modern, moderate Islamist party. They need to partner abroad with the remenants of socialist politics, and at home, with domestic reformers who are seeking to open up a democratic politics in which they hope to thrive.

Yet, even at this crucial time, the Ikwaan was incapable of producing a platform which omitted the most obnoxious features of Islamism.

Lynch is supporter of accomodation with the Muslim Brotherhood. The best he can offer, in his analysis, is excuses. The “liberals” were in prison and couldn’t restrain the “hard liners”. Later drafts of the blueprint might omit the most objectionable requirements. The Higher Ulema Council was only ever meant to be advisory, and how silly of people to think it was supposed to be authoritative.

In short: Lynch is effectively in the business of providing the MB with an alibi.

There’s a better explanation. The MB is, at heart, a fascist theocratic organisation, which can’t dissimulate and pretend to be liberal or democratic, even when its very future depends upon it. The fact is: the Ikwaan had its chance, and it blew it.

Yes, there are certainly divisions within the MB. That’s not cause for rejoicing. Lynch’s piece acknowledges that the “rank and file” are the ones who object to even presenting the MB as liberal. A handful of westernised ideologues aren’t enough to turn the MB into a soft democratic Islamist organisation like the AKP. I confidently expect the MB in power to descend into corruption, factionalism, and violence, as it has in Gaza.

I accept that the IFE is essentially a Jamaat-aligned group. Certainly, I’m not suggesting that the Ikwaan and Jamaat are merged; but that they’re ideologically close, and prepared to work together in the UK. I probably overstated the closeness of the two groups.

David T, interesting that ‘anon’, Bob Pitt, alias ‘Martin Sullivan’, has popped up again. Must have had more than his usual brekkies of wormwood and mandrake toast.

When he’s on about the complexity of Islamicism, from the ‘post’-jihadists of the MAB to the Iranian theocrats, it’s strange that he hasn’t come up already his line about the Jamaat-i-Islami. That their collaboration with the Pak army in mass murder in the Bangladeshi war of national liberation was ‘long ago’ and now all is forgotten.

Um. I’m not sure that it is Bob Pitt…….

“Still, why bother distinguishing between different varieties of political Islam? Sunnis, Shias, Khomeinites, followers of Hasan al-Banna – at the end of the day they’re all Islamofascists aren’t they?” An amusing inversion of this accusation that David T fails to discriminate- how’s this for Occidentalist confusion: Dom Joly goes on a skiing holiday in Iran:

As is not uncommon in these sorts of destinations, my guide was a big fan of British heavy metal music. I was treated to a track from the new solo album by the former lead singer of Iron Maiden, Bruce Dickinson, famous for such songs as ‘Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter’. This particular composition was something about swords and warriors and beasts – the usual, awful, heavy metal lyrical content.

My guide was in ecstasy: ‘This Bruce Dickinson, he is great poet yes? He is like English Sufi philosopher.’

I was speechless. There are many things I could call Bruce Dickinson – but Sufi philosopher?

‘You like Judas Priest?’ asked my guide as another godawful song kicked in. This was not the soundtrack I wanted to accompany the staggering scenery we were driving through.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2008/feb/24/iran.skiing?page=2

David T: “And from that Marc Lynch piece: ‘Abdel Monem Said Aly described it as a blueprint for Iranian-style religious rule, while the Op-ed pages were filled with columns lambasting the MB for its seeming retreat from democratic convictions’.”

But Marc Lynch’s point is that the Brotherhood’s proposal for a Higher Ulema Council opened it up to this sort of hysterical attack. He doesn’t endorse these attacks.

There’s also an interesting piece that Lynch posted on his blog, recounting his discussions with Brotherhood leaders in Cairo last October, which goes into this in more detail.

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2007/10/doing-dialogue-.html

Lynch writes:

“They were all keen to explain to me that the controversial Higher Ulema Council would only be advisory, not compulsory, and that sovereignty would still rest in the elected Parliament and the Constitutional Court. They argued that their purpose had not been to create a new religious authority, but rather to create a new body which would be elected and independent of the Executive Branch – taking power away from al-Azhar rather than imposing Shia-style religious authority.”

Incidentally, Lynch’s article, which openly discusses differences within the Brotherhood leaderhip and makes clear his own lack of sympathy for the conservatives, was reproduced on the Brotherhood’s official English language website.

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Article.asp?ID=14330&SectionID=146

Rather odd behaviour for a “fascist organisation”, some might think.

“At times when human minds and intellects clash, the spirit of Cordoba is evoked. The symbol of human excellence, intellectual ingenuity and spiritual elation, Cordoba, the city, civilization and people …” say the Cordoba Foundation.

That’ll be this Cordoba then :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph_of_C%C3%B3rdoba

It actually took up 80% of what are now Spain and Portugal.