Muslim Brotherhood & Egypt question For Dr Peterson

[_Fence Sitter]

Dan,

What is your view on the Muslim Brotherhood and are they part of what is happening in Egypt?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What is your view on the Muslim Brotherhood and are they part of what is happening in Egypt?

I think they're a mixed bag. Their views run the spectrum from active sympathy with al-Qa‘ida to something a bit more like a Muslim equivalent of the old European Christian Democrats (back when they were actually Christians). Like Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, they have made a great deal of headway among the general populace by delivering services (health clinics, food aid, education) that corrupt and incompetent governments have been unable to supply.

I see some elements of the Muslim Brotherhood as violent and evil, but other elements are not. The trick is to separate them. We cannot work with the first group; we'll probably have to learn to deal with the second.

The events in Egypt seem to have gotten their start without much input from the Muslim Brotherhood, as largely if not purely a demand for political and economic reform. Since last Friday, the Brotherhood has been more visible, but I still don't think they're directing events. However, in the general chaos, groups with superior organization will come to have disproportionate influence, for good or ill. (Think of the way Lenin's Bolsheviks seized power from Kerensky and the democratic socialists after the Russian Revolution in 1917, illustrating Lenin's ideas about how a small and tightly organized "revolutionary vanguard" could take control of a much bigger and more diffuse movement.)

[_harmony]

What do you think will be the eventual outcome for Egypt?

This revolution just seems to have sprung up, fully grown, from nothing. Should we expect another Iran?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What do you think will be the eventual outcome for Egypt?

I expect that the military will assert itself.

Mr. Mubarak may survive until September, though I rather doubt it. His new vice president, Omar Suleiman -- who, like him, is a military man -- could well eventually assume the presidency.

This revolution just seems to have sprung up, fully grown, from nothing.

Political repression, poverty, and economic stagnation created massive discontent over the past three decades. I've actually been surprised that the Egyptians have endured the situation as long as they have.

The spark was set by Tunisia, two or three weeks ago, when, for the first time in at least twenty years, a popular uprising (rather than a wearisomely familiar military coup) sent an Arab tyrant (President Zine al-Abidin) packing. With modern social media bypassing Egypt's state-owned and state-controlled broadcasting networks and newspapers, a lot of us predicted that Egyptians would take the Tunisian cue -- though I didn't anticipate anything quite as big or successful as we've seen.

(I actually gave a fifteen-minute interview to KBYU-TV this morning on social media and the Egyptian demonstrations. I think it will probably be broadcast and up on line sometime tomorrow -- by which time, of course, everything I said may be so wildly obsolete as to make me look like a complete doofus.)

Should we expect another Iran?

I don't think so. I hope not. The Egyptian military are stronger, in a sense, and more autonomous and popularly respected than their Iranian counterparts were.

It's possible that Mohamed ElBaradei will eventually assume the leadership of Egypt in some sort of coalition government that includes representation from the Muslim Brotherhood, but that's the worst I anticipate (and I don't actually think that it would be too bad).

But, of course, I could very easily be wrong.

[_Joey]

I completely agree with Dan Peterson in his observation above. So did Shepard Smith at Fox News a few days ago. I think Dan may have been a bit more charitable to the Muslim Brotherhood though. Personal knowledge is always a greater benefit from those who have first hand knowledge though.

[_bcspace]

I completely agree with Dan Peterson in his observation above

He's generally correct but not in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood. They are actually quite united in Islamic extremism (which is not too far from mainstream Islamic moderation). It only looks like their views run the spectrum because they present a different face depending on the circumstances.

For example, they've had several representatives here in the US tell us that they no longer feel the need for violence, that they can get what they want through the political process (conveniently not telling anyone what getting what they want actually means). Notice how they want a longer interim government. It's to consolidate and expand their gains. Now that the police have left, they are forming local councils in their place and these will cow the population. While it was wrong generally for the police to repress, it was not wrong to "repress" the Muslim Brotherhood.

I think you would be better served with good scholarship on the matter starting here:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/05/the-muslim-brotherhoods-american-goals

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/04/islamists-and-the-left-working-together-in-muslim-majority

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

If you want to understand the wider aims and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood copy the URL in my sig line, paste it into a browser, and spend a good hour or two reading it (you may want to start on page 253). AQI, AQA, AQ's sister organization in the MB, AQE, and the myriad Islamic organizations that support the implementation of Sharia law aren't a Tiny Minority of Extremists, but rather mainstream in their views of Islam and its implications for the human condition.

The idea that we have to separate, within a Sharia compliant oraganization, the men who will use violence to further their aims from the men who will use the political process to implement Sharia law is akin to separating the US Armed Forces from the Federal government. It's nonsense. They're part of the same organization seeking to exert its broader aims.

The continued pandering to Islamists will only embolden them as they sense weakness in our collective will; they'll exert their will over a weaker host political system until they control the political process. That's precisely what's happening in Egypt (and across Africa) now, Iran in the past, and in the West in the future.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Inconceivable]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Cam.

I don't understand why a learned man like Dan cannot see the Muslim Brotherhood for the organized effort that it is. Well, unless perhaps he is known well enough among them to fear for his life if he were to tell the truth. In that case, his opinion (in spite of his knowledge on the subject) does nothing but further their twisted cause.

There is evil in the world, Dan. There is evil in the Muslim Brotherhood's teaching/enforcing of Sharia Law. For them to look upon the non believing as less than human in order to justify their wicked behavior toward them is what I am refering to. They are a wrecking machine to peace, understanding, tolerance, love and charity. Nothing good will come of their usurpation of power. There is no good side of them.

[_Joseph]

If Mubarek wants to stay in power he has one option. Use the military to shoot those rioting and protesting. Shoot them and bulldoze the bodies for all others to see.
The military would most likely not do this so he is on the way out.

That the US has backed him is one more great PR move we have made.

Thank God for France. They are the only thing keeping the US from being the most hated nation and government in the world.

[_harmony]

That the US has backed him is one more great PR move we have made.

At least it's not just one party.