هل تخلي الإخوان المسلمون عن العنف ؟

فى سنة 1928 اسس حسن البنا (1906 - 1949) جماعة الإخوان المسلمين . ويظن مؤرخون متخصصون فى دراسة ظروف نشأة هذه الجماعة أن السفارة البريطانية وكذا السفارة الفرنسية فى مصر كانتا داعمين (ماليا) للجماعة عند نشأتها ، لأنها كانت تقدم بديلا للحركة الوطنية (العلمانية) التى كان حزب "الوفد" (وعدد كبير من قياداته كانوا من المسيحيين المصريين) يتزعمها ... كما يوجد ما يشبه اليقين ان الدولة السعودية الثالثة (1902- للآن) ساعدت على إنشاء حركة الإخوان المسلمين عن طريق وسيط بين سلطان نجد وملك الحجاز وقتها (عبدالعزيز المعروف فى المراجع الغربية بإبن سعود) وبين حسن البنا ، وهذا الوسيط هو السوري محمد رشيد رضا ، أكثر تلاميذ الإمام محمد عبده محافظة وتشددا وقربا من فقه إبن تيمية. وخلال السنوات العشرين (1928 - 1948) تحولت الجماعة تدريجيا من حركة دعوية دينية إجتماعية الى حركة سياسية . وفى سنة 1948 ، قام رئيس وزراء مصر محمود فهمي النقراشي (بسبب الإغتيالات التى قامت بها الجماعة) بحل جماعة الإخوان المسلمين . ومنذ 1948 وحتى سقوط الرئيس المصري المخلوع حسني مبارك فى فبراير 2011 ، كانت جماعة الإخوان المسلمين محظورة قانونيا ، وتعرض كثيرون من قادتها وأعضاءها للسجن والتعذيب . ولأعضاء منها (أو لأعضاء بجماعات تفرعت عن جماعة الإخوان المسلمين) وجهت الإتهامات بإغتيال العديد من الشخصيات المعارضة لفكر الجماعة ومن هؤلاء النقراشي رئيس الوزراء الذى أغتيل فى ديسمبر 1948 ، وأنور السادات الذى أغتيل فى سبتمبر 1981 . كما أن الجماعة إتهمت بالقيام بمحاولة فاشلة لإغتيال الزعيم المصري الأشهر جمال عبدالناصر فى خريف 1954 .... كما قام أعضاء من تنظيم إنبثق عن الجماعة بإغتيال رئيس البرلمان المصري فى 1990 وحاول آخرون (من تنظيمات إنبثقت عن الإخوان) إغتيال حسني مبارك فى أديس أبابا (إثيوبيا) فى يونيو 1995 . واليوم ، وبعد رفع الحظر عن جماعة الإخوان المسلمين ، وبعد حصولها على أكبر عدد من مقاعد البرلمان المصري الجديد والذى إستهل أول جلساته يوم 23 يناير/كانون الثاني 2012 بإختيار الإخواني الكتاتني رئيسا للبرلمان ، فإن السؤال القديم/الجديد يبقي يتردد ، وهو : هل العنف جزء أصيل من نسيج حركة الإخوان المسلمين ، أم أنهم - كما يكررون - قد نبذوا إستعمال العنف ضد خصومهم ومخالفيهم فى الرأي ؟

=======================

في الجزء الثالث من كتاِبه (في أعقاب الثورة المصرية – ثورة 1919) وتحت عنوان ( موجة القتل والارهاب) كتب المؤرخُ المصري الشهير عبد الرحمن الرافعي : ( ومما زاد في تفاقم القتل والإجرام أَن العنصَر الإرهابي من جماعةِ "الاخوان المسلمين" اعتنقها وعدّها وسيلةً لقلبِ نظامِ الحكم في البلاد. إن العنصرَ الارهابي في هذه الجماعةِ كان يرمي من غير شك إلى أن يؤول إليها – أي للجماعة الحكم ...) (أما تطلع الإخوان المسلمين إلي الحكم ، فأمر لا ريب فيه ، وقد بدا من تصريحات الأستاذ حسن البنا المرشد العام للإخوان المسلمين أنه واصل إلي الحكم يوما ما).

ولكن الموضوعيةَ تحتّم انصاف حسن البنا وبكلمات نفس المؤرخ : ( كان يريد كما يبدو من ظاهر أقواله انقلاباً في الحكم ، لا عن طريق القتل والارهاب ، بل عن طريق انضمام غالبية الشعب لدعوته . ولكن الارهابيين من أنصاره لم يرتضوا الطريق الدستوري ، واندفعوا الى وسائل القتل والارهاب ، ومن هنا جاءتُ حملات بعض الاخوان المسلمين وقتاً ما على النظم الدستورية). (انتهت كلمات عبد الرحمن الرافعي).ولاشك أن تاريخَ الاخوان بقى مشخصاً لما كتبه عنهم عبد الرحمن الرافعي. فهناك البعض (مثلهم مثل الاستاذ البنا) يطمح للوصول للحكم عن طريق انضمام غالبية الشعب إلى دعوتهم . وهؤلاء ، لايمكن ان يكونوا إلاَّ جزءاً من الصورة المصرية المشروعة أو فسيفيساء (موزاييك) الصورة السياسية المصرية . وحتى الذين يخالفون الاخوان في رؤيتهم وافكارهم ، فانهم لا يحق لهم اعتبار الاخوان (الذين يطمحون للوصول للحكم عن طريق انضمام غالبية الشعب لهم ) إلاَّ ضمن "لاعبي المباراة الديموقراطية المشروعة ".

أما الاخوان الذين وصفهم الأستاذُ الرافعي بقوله أنهم كانوا ( يرمون من غير شك إلى أن يؤول اليهم الحكم ، ولعلهم استبطأوا اعداد الرأي العام لتحقيق هذه الغاية عن طريق الانتخابات ، فرأوا أن "القوة" هي السبيل إلى ادراك غايتهم) ، فإنهم ليسوا برجال سياسة وانما هم ( كما وصفهم الاستاذ الرافعي) "ارهابيون".

ولاشك ان من هؤلاء الاخوان الذين كانوا يتوخون الوصول لحكم مصر لا طريق الانتخابات ( كما كان يطمح الاستاذ البنا ) وانما عن طريق "القوة" ، أولئك الذين قتلوا رئيس وزراء مصر محمود فهمي النقراشي ( 1948) وقتلوا المستشار الخازندار (1948) واللواء سليم زكي(1948) والذين اطلقوا النار على جمال عبد الناصر في ميدان المنشية بالاسكندرية (1954) وأولئك الذين قتلوا وزير الاوقاف المصري الدكتور الذهبي (1977) واولئك الذين إغتالوا الرئيس انور السادات (1981) وأولئك الذين إغتالوا رئيس مجلس الشعب المصري د. رفعت المحجوب (1990) والذين قتلوا المفكر المصري فرج فودة (1992) والذين شرعوا في قتل اديب مصر الكبير نجيب محفوظ (1993) ... لا شك ان هؤلاء (القتلة) هم من المجموعة الاخرى (من الاخوان المسلمين) الذين قال عنهم الاستاذ عبد الرحمن الرافعي انهم كانو على خلاف الاستاذ البنا لا يفضلون وصول الاخوان المسلمين للحكم عن طريق إستمالة أغلبية الشعب المصري إلى جانبهم ، وانما عن طريق القوة ( أي القتل و الترويع وإطلاق الرصاص والاغتيالات والتفجيرات). لا شك اذن ان بداخل الاخوان المسلمين تيار يشبه الاستاذ البنا في طموحه لحكم مصر عن طريق انجذاب غالبية الشعب المصري لدعوتهم ، وتيار آخر يرى ان الوصول لحكم مصر انما يكون عن طريق القوة ( السلاح).

ومنذ اغتيال اخواني لرئيس الحكومة المصرية محمود فهمي النقراشي وحتى محاولة اغتيال رئيس مصر في أديس أبابا ( باثيوبيا) في 1995 ؛ لايوجد اي دليل على أن التيار الأول ( المماثل للاستاذ البنا في توخيه الوصول للحكم عن طريق استمالة أغلبية الشعب المصري لدعوة الاخوان) قد اصبح هو "التيار الوحيد" داخل "الاخوان المسلمين" .

وآمل الا يقول لي مجادلُ أنني أخلط "الاخوان" بتيارات اخرى مثل "الجماعة الاسلامية" و"الجهاد" و"الجماعات التكفيرية" ، فأنا وكل معنى بدراسة الاسلام السياسي في مصر يعرف ان "مطبخ الاخوان المسلمين" هو مصدَرُ كل تيارات الاسلام السياسي الاخرى . وأن أدبيات الاخوان المسلمين (سواءاً اكانت ادبيات مسالمة كأدبيات الاستاذ البنا أو ادبيات عنيفة ومسلحة كأدبيات الاستاذ سيد قطب) هي مرجعيات كل تيارات الاسلام السياسي المصري ؛ بل انها مرجعيات معظم تيارات الاسلام السياسي في العالم . فأدبيات التيار الوهابي "ساذجة" ويعوزها "العمق" ولا تتحرك الاَّ بقوة دفع "البترو-دولار) ولا ترقى لمستوى ادبيات أساتذة مثل حسن البنا أو سيد قطب ( والذي هو أعمق بكثير من الرجل الذي ألهمه أي من أبي الأعلى المودودي). واذا كان كاتبُ هذه السطور يستنكف ويستهجن ويرفض كل اجراء غير قانوني اتخذته السلطات في مصر ( منذ 1948 وحتى هذه اللحظة ) ضد الاخوان المسلمين . فانه ( في نفس الوقت) من حقه أن يتساءل : (اين الدليل على ان تيار الاستاذ حسن البنا والذي يتوخى وصول الاخوان للحكم عن طريق جذب أغلبية المصريين لدعوتهم هو (اليوم) التيار الوحيد داخل تنظيم الاخوان المسلمين؟ واين الدليل على ان التيار الآخر ( تيار القوة والعنف والقتل والرصاص والتفجيرات ) قد "تلاشى وتبخر واختفى" ؟ واين الدليل على ان وصول التيار السلمي ( داخل الاخوان المسلمين ) للحكم ، لن يتبعه استيلاء التيار الآخر ( غير السلمي ) على عجلة قيادة المجتمع ورفضه ( مثل حركة حماس في غزة ) التخلي عن عجلة القيادة ، بحجة انهم المنوط بهم تطبيق شرع الله.

Tarek Heggy on the Muslim Brotherhood

As the Islamist trend sweeps Egypt, it is important to examine the impact that may have on the broader region as well as the West.

Where is the Evidence, Gentlemen?

In Part Three of his book, In the Aftermath of the Egyptian Revolution of 1919, under the heading “A Paroxysm of Bloodshed and Terrorism”, the noted Egyptian historian Abdul Rahman al-Rafi’i wrote: “Contributing to the dramatic rise in the murder and crime rate was the adoption by terrorist elements in the society of the Moslem Brothers of militant violent political action as a means of overthrowing the political order. There is no doubt that the aim of these elements was the seizure of power by the Society. It is equally clear from the statements made by Hassan el-Banna, the Supreme Guide of the Society of the Moslem Brothers, that he believed he would one day reach power.”

However, to be fair to el-Banna, we will quote the words of the same author: “It appears from the statements he made that he wanted to overthrow the regime … not through bloodshed and terrorism but by winning over the majority of the Egyptian people. But the terrorists among his followers disdained the constitutional route to power, opting for the more direct route of murder and terror. Hence the campaigns launched at one time by some Moslem Brothers against constitutional systems.”

The history of the Moslem Brothers is well documented by Abdul Rahman el-Rafi’i, who distinguished between two trends within its membership structure. One, which included el-Banna himself, believed the Society’s ultimate aim of attaining political power could be achieved by peaceful means, that is, by winning over the majority of the people to its rallying call. This trend can only be regarded as a legitimate component of the mosaic of Egyptian political life. Even those who oppose the vision and ideology of the Moslem Brothers have no right to consider those among its members who aspire to power through persuasion as anything other than legitimate players in the democratic game. The same does not apply to the other trend within the Moslem Brothers which, according to el-Rafi’i, considered that working to attain power by mobilizing public opinion through elections would take too long and that the use of force was the only viable option. The proponents of this school of thought are not politicians but, in the words of el Rafi’i, “terrorists.”

Among the Brothers who sought to reach power in Egypt not through elections – as el-Banna advocated – but through the use of force were those who murdered Egyptian prime minister Mahmoud Fahmy el-Noqrashy (1948), judge Ahmed el-Khazindar (1948) and General Selim Zaky (1948); fired shots at Gamal Abdel Nasser in Alexandria’s Mansheya Square (1954), killed Minister of Waqf Dr. el-Dahaby (1977), assassinated President Anwar Sadat (1981), killed Egyptian intellectual Farag Foda (1992) and attempted to kill Egyptian Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz (1993). These murderers belonged to the trend within the Society of Moslem Brothers whose members disagreed with el-Banna’s preference for a ‘peaceful’ accession to power through winning over the hearts and minds of the Egyptian people, believing rather that power would only be attained by force of arms. There are thus two distinct trends within the Moslem Brothers: one which believes that a peaceful accession to state power is possible and another that power can only be seized by force of arms.

Since the Brothers’ assassination of Prime Minister el-Nuqrashi in 1948 until their failed assassination attempt against Egypt’s president in Addis Ababa in 1995, there is no evidence that the first trend which subscribes to el-Banna’s doctrine of accession to power by non-violent means has become the only trend within the society. Some might argue that I am confusing the Moslem Brothers with other movements like the Jama’at Islamiya, Jihad or the Jama’at Takfireya. But like other students of political Islam in Egypt, I am well aware that the ‘kitchen’ of the Moslem Brothers is the source of all other trends of political Islam. I also know that their literature (whether peaceful like the works of el-Banna or militant like those of Sayed Qutb) are the reference works for all the Egyptian trends of political Islam – indeed, for all trends of political Islam in the world. Take the literature of the Wahabi trend, for example, which is simplistic and shallow, its driving force the momentum of petrodollars. It does not rise to the level of the literature of such masters as Hassan el-Banna or Sayed Qutb [a far deeper thinker than the man who inspired him, Abul’Ala el-Mawdoody].

Although I deplore and condemn all the illegal measures taken by the Egyptian authorities against the Moslem Brothers from 1948 up to the present day, at the same time I am entitled to ask what proof we have that the trend of Hassan el-Banna, who advocated accession to power by peaceful means, is today the only trend within the Society of the Moslem Brothers. And what proof is there that the trend which opted for forceful reform, that is, through the use of violence and bloodshed, has disappeared? Or, for that matter, what proof is there that the accession to power of the peaceful trend within the movement will not be followed by a takeover by the non-peaceful trend which will refuse to step down, as Hamas has done in Gaza, under the pretext that only they are qualified to apply God’s law?

---

The Realities of the Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood was launched in 1928 to restore a caliphate, a global religious government aimed at fighting the "non-believers" (specifically, Christians, Hindus, and Jews) and at spreading Islam. The group opposed the existence of any secular states in all Muslim societies throughout the Middle East.

The Brotherhood killed Egypt's Prime Minister Mahmud Fahmi Nuqrashi in 1948 and plotted to kill President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the early 1950s. An offshoot group, Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, later Osama bin Laden's number-two man, assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat in 1981 and tried to kill President Hosni Mubarak in 1995.

I. Muslim Brothers' Political Thought

The Brotherhood remains extremely opposed to Western civilization and to a political peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hamas is a Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
This group's political thinking can be summarized as follows:

• Political Freedoms: Unlike Western democracies, which guarantee the political participation of every citizen regardless of ideology, opinion, or religion, the Muslim Brothers make the political participation of individuals in society subject to the principles of Islamic Sharia.
  
• Freedom of Belief: The Muslim Brothers guarantee freedom of belief only for the followers of the three revealed (Abrahamic) religions, otherwise known as "the people of the Book."
  
• Personal Freedoms: While Western democracies guarantee the absolute freedom of the individual as long as it does not impinge on the freedom of others, the Muslim Brothers set freedom of thought within the strict parameters of a moral code derived from the Sharia. They call for the restoration of hisbah, which allows a private citizen to prosecute any individual who commits an act he considers a breach of the Sharia even if the plaintiff himself has not been personally injured by such an act. The right of hisbah was recently exercised by a private citizen in Egypt against the respected intellectual Dr. Nasr Hamad Abu Zayd, whose writings he considered as running counter to the teachings of Islam. The court ruled for the plaintiff, branding Dr. Abu Zayd an apostate and ordering him to divorce his wife on the grounds that a Muslim woman cannot be married to an apostate. Dr. Abu Zayd fled with his wife to the Netherlands.
  
• Women's Rights: In Western democracies, women enjoy the same political rights as men: they can hold public office and participate in political life without any restrictions based on gender. But as far as the Muslim Brothers are concerned, women's political participation would be limited to municipal elections; there is no question, for example, of a woman ever becoming head of state. To further marginalize women and exclude them from any meaningful role in public life, the Muslim Brothers call for educational curricula to include material that is appropriate for women, tailored to suit their nature and role, as perceived by them. In addition to special curricula for girls, they insist on a complete segregation of the sexes in the classrooms, in public transportation, and in the workplace. The Islamist perception of women as lesser beings was illustrated in Kuwait, where Islamists temporarily blocked passage of a bill granting political rights to women.
  
• The Economy: The Muslim Brothers call for the establishment of an economic system based on the respect of private property. At the same time, however, they insist that it be based on the principles of Islamic Sharia, which criminalizes bank interest. They also call for state ownership of public utilities.
  
• System of Government: Contrary to the system of government applied in a democracy, which is based on the peaceful rotation of power through elections, the Muslim Brothers call for a system of government based on the principles of Sharia and the revival of the Islamic Caliphate.
  
• Civil Society: The freedom of movement enjoyed by civil society organizations in a democracy would, in an Islamist system, be conditional on their adherence to the strictures of Sharia.
  
• Government: The Muslim Brothers oppose the notion of a state based on democratic institutions, calling instead for an Islamic government based on the shura (consultative assembly) system, veneration of the leader, and the investiture of a Supreme Guide. In this they are close to Iran's system.
  
• Political Freedoms: While the legislative branch of government monitors the actions of the state to ensure that they conform to the rules of democracy, the actions of the state are monitored by the Muslim Brothers to ensure that they conform to the rules of Islamic Sharia.
  
• The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Muslim Brothers were the first to send volunteers to fight Israel when it was founded in 1948. They have opposed all attempts to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict, in particular the peace agreements between Egypt and Israel initiated by the late President Sadat. It would be true to say that the Muslim Brothers will never recognize the existence of Israel as legitimate.
  
• Religious Minorities: Although the Muslim Brothers of Egypt do not go as far as their counterparts in Saudi Arabia, where the construction of houses of worship for non-Muslims is prohibited, their position on the question of religious minorities include the barring of any non-Muslim from becoming president and the subjection of non-Muslims to the principles of Sharia on which the entire legal system is based.
  
• The Legal System: The Muslim Brothers call for the establishment of a constitutional and legal system based on the principles of Sharia, including the application of corporal punishments in the penal code (stoning, lashing, cutting off the hands of thieves, etc.)
  
• Violence against Civilians: The Muslim Brothers have never condemned the use of violence against civilians, except if it is directed against Muslim civilians and even that only selectively.
  

Finally, "progress" in today's world is realized by two tools, "science and modern management," two qualities that the Muslim Brothers have neither access to nor interest in.

II. The Necessity to Dialogue

Nevertheless, the harsh and often illegal treatment to which the Muslim Brotherhood is subjected is both unacceptable legally and self-defeating in that it hardens attitudes on both sides. In fact, the only way to resolve this problem with the Islamists is through dialogue, by opening channels of communication and engaging in a frank interchange of views. Debating the issues is the only way to transform a religious party, in the long term, into a civil political party that subscribes to the main tenets of democracy: acceptance of the "Other," rotation of power, and respect for other religions and for women. The transformation will be complete when political Islam abandons its distorted understanding of our religion -- from one rooted in the Middle Ages and reflecting the mentality of Bedouins bred in a harsh and unforgiving desert environment. Civil society is entitled to protect itself from any group that remains locked in a time warp and would have us all retreat with it into a distant past.

As reform in Egypt is a thousand times better than its takeover by any of a number of alternatives, so too is reform in Saudi Arabia a thousand times better than its takeover by alternatives that could plunge the entire region into unprecedented chaos. Maintaining the stability of Saudi Arabia and all its neighbors is imperative. But guaranteeing stability is impossible without a historical operation against the extremists. The question is whether the sane elements in Saudi Arabia will follow a course similar to the one taken by their famous forbear eighty years ago or whether they will continue to coexist with them until the ship sinks with everyone on board.

III. The Requirements of the Dialogue

Dialogue with Islamists should be based on seeking the answers to the following questions:

1. Some of the Muslim Brothers (MBs) now expound the idea that Copts (Egyptian Christians) are "Fully First Class Egyptian Citizens." Would this imply that a Copt could be, in principle, elected president of Egypt?

2. Would the Muslim Brothers follow the Saudi model of segregating girls from boys in educational institutions such as schools and universities as well as all other organizations?

3. Non-History-Related-Tourism (beach tourism) generates in excess of 75% of Egypt's tourism revenues. What are the Brotherhood's views on the sale of alcoholic beverages, gambling, and casinos, and women dressing in any way they choose?

4. What is the Brotherhood's opinion concerning the peace treaties between Egypt and Israel, and between Jordan and Israel?

5. What do the MBs think of the different forms of economic cooperation between Egypt and Israel (the Qualifying Industrial Zones [QIZ], in which joint enterprises receive special privileges for exporting goods to the United States, for instance?

6. How do the MBs describe the killing of Israeli civilians in Hamas or Islamic Jihad suicide operations?

7. Do the MBs believe that Sayyid Qutb's doctrine known as al-Hak'imiyya -- that government must be based exclusively on Allah's law and which rejects democracy and human law as apostasy -—is still the basis of their political system?

8. What are the views of the Brotherhood on women holding high government offices -- including ministries, the prime ministership, and Supreme Court judgeships?

9. What are the group's views on the vision of a "two state" solution for Israel and Palestine to live peacefully next to each other? Would they then accept and recognize the right of Israel to exist? Would they also accept that the Jewish section of Jerusalem is Israel's capital?

10. Egypt's legal system since 1883 has been based on the juridical notions of the European legal system. What are the Brotherhood's plans with this regard? And what do they think of physical punishments, such as the sanctions applicable in Saudi Arabia?

11. Like all modern societies, the Egyptian banking system is based on the notion of interests for lending and savings. Will the Brotherhood keep it?

12. Is Iran a factor of stability (or instability) in today's world?

Finally, one must know that the Brothers are likely to use taqqiyya [dissimulation], a principle which --according to some clerics such as Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya -- allows Muslims to lie if so doing assists them in ultimately defeating the infidels.