Refuting Allegations of Brotherhood Leader Ibrahim Mounir before the Hearing of the British House of Commons With a heavy heart, we all have followed the brutal terror attack that claimed many innocent lives right in the heart of the beautiful city of London. This horrific attack, which was part of the systemic violence cycle and terror series targeting Europe at large, had started in Belgium, France, and Germany and eventually in Britain.
No doubt that this recent attack just confirms and supports our position, as one of the specialized research centers, studying political Islam for decades, that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a major supporter of terrorism in the world. This support can be manifested in the fact that the MB group has always been the source from which all Jihadist groups and individuals derive their extremist ideas and ex-communicative (or takfiri) thinking as enshrined in the literature of its ideologues and interlocutors, or in its generous funding of some terrorist elements, providing them with material and logistical support and various types of assistance in Britain.
The MB group tries more often than not to disassociate itself from terrorism and gild its tarnished image before the British public opinion and the British House of Commons during the hearings in which London-based MB leader Ibrahim Mounir testified, despite the fact that the Brotherhood tends to reveal its real face from time to time, spewing hate and extremism that only stand for its intellectual perversion and mendacity.
Therefore, this monograph, I wrote, seeks to refute the false arguments of the Brotherhood, clarifying their misinformative, manipulative and rabble-rousing rhetoric. I write this particularly in response to what Ibrahim Mounir himself said during the hearing, citing the Brotherhood's literature itself to make the case against them. I will show how the Brotherhood's rhetoric and violent record prove the opposite of the claims put forward by Mounir by contesting them with methodical and scholarly argument. The points of the counter-argument here are presented with cogency and force as you will come to see in the next few pages.
VII – Muslim Brotherhood & Racial Pride Refuting MB leader Ibrahim Mounir's statements that the Muslim Brotherhood denounces racial profiling such as anti-Semitism and other types of racism, and that the Brotherhood's doctrine declares all people equal in rights and duties.
Here, we analyze some fatwas (i.e. religious rulings) as they appeared in the second edition of the MB-linked Al-Da'wa Magazine. These fatwas best manifest the ideology and the vision of the Brotherhood when applied on the ground from an honest, non-pragmatist perspective that does not take into consideration the group's political calculations. I am bound to present the three fatwas that were issued in response to three questions related to the status of others, such as the Copts or non-Muslims by and large. The three fatwas appeared in one single issue of the MB-linked Al-Da'wa magazine.
Issue No. 56/December 1980 included a Q&A section where readership could send their questions on a wide range of juristic issues that usually were answered by a jurist.
The First Fatwa: One reader asked about the legal ruling of building churches on Islamic or Muslim-dominated lands or territories.
The Mufti of the Muslim Brotherhood then answered that question by stating that the ruling on building churches can be of three categories depending on the type of the land:
The First Category: Lands which Muslims themselves established and constructed such as Al-Maadi, the Tenth of Ramadan, Helwan, etc.
The Brotherhood's Mufti maintained that it is not permissible to build a church or synagogue inside these places and its likes.
The Second Category: Lands which Muslims annexed by force such as Alexandria in Egypt and Constantinople in Turkey.
The Brotherhood's Mufti maintains that it is also not permissible to build these houses of worship on these lands. Some scholars have even said that other houses of worship on Muslim lands should be demolished because they (the lands) are owned by Muslims.
The Third Category: Lands which Muslims annexed through peace settlements or treaties with their dwellers. The Brotherhood's Mufti maintains that the chosen opinion is to keep churches and synagogues that are left standing at the time of conquest and to prevent the construction or rebuilding what has been demolished unless they are agreed upon in the peace settlement with the Muslim ruler to establish them. The agreement will be in effect till the number of Muslims increases on that land. There is clear evidence that it is not permissible to establish a church on Islamic soil (aka Dar al-Islam). Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "No church is to be built or renovated in Islam," (Recorded in Al-Mughni by ibn Qudaamah al-Makhdisi). This is the view of Imam Shafi'i and Ahmed B. Hannbal.
The Second Fatwa is based on a question received from one reader, "M.H.T," a Cairo resident, in which he said: "I've read a fatwa that [The People of the Book living in Muslim lands are entitled to publicly drink alcohol; and Islamic Law, or Shariah, guarantees them such a right]. What do you think of this?
The Brotherhood's Mufti Answer:
"The People of the Book, being citizens or nationals of that Muslim land, are obliged to obey the rules of the Islamic system. Aspects of obligations are considered in matters that do not affect their religious beliefs or freedoms. For example, they are not obliged to perform as-Salaat (i.e. ritual prayers), pay Zakaah (i.e. obligatory almsgiving or charity), and perform Hajj (i.e. ritual pilgrimage to Mecca) or be involved in Jihad (i.e. defending and fighting for Islam) as well as all other acts of worship which are meant for Muslims, none else. As for other non-doctrinal matters, it is incumbent upon them to abide by the rules of Islamic law. Like their Muslim counterparts, whoever steals from among them, the Islamic punishment of theft (or al-Hadd) is to be meted out upon him/her. Whoever commits adultery, gets involved in banditry or perpetrates any offense is to receive the exact same penalty as their Muslim counterpart, fairly and equally. [And] This is the ultimate point of justice and equality."
He continues: "The judges in Egypt used to handle the cases of Muslims inside the mosques, and then commit separate sessions following the afternoon prayer (or al-‘Asr) to handle and decide issues of the People of the Book. Sometimes magistrates used to dedicate a whole day for them and welcome them inside their personal house in order to look into their cases."
The Brotherhood's Mufti elaborates further on his fatwa, saying: "Like any other community, the Islamic community also has its customs, norms and traditions that all those who are peculiar to it and happen to live within it must hold these norms in respect. In a given Muslim society, it is totally wrong and forbidden to indulge in wantonness as well as it is strictly impermissible to have relationships or mix with the opposite sex outside the realm of marriage.
As for personal matters and practices, such as marriage, divorce, eating pork and drinking alcohol which are all allowed by virtue of their religions, Islam, however, does not impose on them anything nor tries to affect the ruling of proscription or prescription thereof.
In fact, many fuqaha (i.e. jurists or scholars of legal theory) did not even bother subsuming these matters into their writings on jurisprudence. However, the majority of those Fuqaha have stipulated that these matters and practices should never be done in public for the sole purpose of persevering the community's identity and decency. As for the Riba (i.e. usury or exorbitant interest), it had been always declared as Haram (I.e. prohibited) in all the divinely-revealed religions, theirs included. Thus, it is not proper to deal with interest within an Islamic community.
From the above explanation, we can conclude that all the harms, ills and evils that Islam forbids are by extension ruled ‘forbidden' to anyone. Therefore, no one should take the prohibited things in Islam lightly by simply doing them in public, particularly the People of the Book. Should they come to do those things in public, it would certainly hurt the feelings of the Islamic community around them, in which they live and interact. In a nutshell, all things that Islam forbids and warns its followers against, which are permissible for the People of the Book, should never be done in public as it will be deemed as complete disregard for the feelings of their Muslim friends and neighbors."
He then tells the readers: "[And] perhaps this is an odd fatwa that you came across from a so-called Muslim modernist, being easy prey to globalization and acculturation, and who does not care for the dignity of the Islamic community. Such fatwas are made under the pretext of keeping pace with the times according to the figment of their imagination and limited understanding. Anyhow, we always say that the Islamic community is a clean, humane society that bears all the hallmarks of purity and decency for the sake of God, no one else. It does not have nightclubs. It does not have unethical tourism at the expense of the honor, dignity and morals of Muslims for the Muslim fears no one but God alone; and this fear galvanizes him to better himself and his lot.
Conclusion After this detailed and nuanced response to the Brotherhood's thin and flawed arguments which were made during the hearings, I would like to conclude by emphasizing the following observations. I was keen to refute the Brotherhood's claims and respond to them with facts from their own literature and history. I did not accuse them falsely of anything that they did not say or do. For purposes of authenticity and reliability, I delved deep into their writings, be them Hassan al-Banna's and/or Sayed Qutb's writings, and analyzed their statements and practices that have been there since the Brotherhood's inception. The Muslim Brotherhood is a pragmatist group, which, contrary to its claims, is not hesitant to reveal the opposite of what it says or does in order to achieve its ends. In Western societies, they work on "empowerment" in various ways by accommodating their projects and ideas so that they can control society in its entirety. This happened in Egypt as well as many other Arab countries, and it is happening right now in Britain.
