A few days ago, I posted a report on the appearance of Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Ibrahim El Houdaiby at UC-Irvine. (This report has also been posted on Ikhwan-the Muslim Brotherhood's English-language website.)
That night, I got the below response from Mr El-Houdaiby, which appears in the comments section of this blog.
"I am Ibrahim El Houdaiby and my answer is rather simple, and straightforward.
I have already read the entire holyland foundation thing, and there is no proof whatsoever, neither legal nor rational, that this group is associated with the MB, plus a US government has rejected these documents
At any case, even if it did not reject them, the most important point which I made, and you mentioned but kept very low here, is that the Muslim Brotherhood is not in any way associated with that foundation, we do not have presence in North America to start with, and this goes against our ideology and what we stand for
if you want to read (again) about the objectives of shariah I have spoken about during my talk you could find them in a book entitled: How to Deal with Holy Quran by Qaradawy, but I'm not sure thats translated to English
Anyway I hope your mum is fine and that there was nothing serious."
October 8, 2008 10:21 PM
Below is my response (also in the comments section).
Gary Fouse said...
"Mr El Houdaiby,
First of all, I thank you for your good wishes about my mother. She is fine.
As for the document I gave you, I would appreciate any information you could provide that shows that this document is not authentic and has been proven to be false.
I wanted to ask you yesterday if that was the first time you had seen this document, I did not have unlimited time to ask questions. In that forum, a person really should ask only one question.
As for the Muslim Brotherhood not being in the US, that may be true, but the document, if authentic, would indicate that the Brotherhood has contact with US groups, such as the Muslim Student Associations (MSA). It has been reported that the Brotherhood is associated with the MSA as a sponsor or founder. Perhaps, you could enlighten me on that.
As for the current philosophy and aims of the Brotherhood, I want to believe that they are as you say. As for the government in Egypt, which you oppose, I take no sides in that issue. I too would like to see Democracy come to the Middle East, but I don't see how Sharia law and democracy come together, at least our idea of democracy.
Let me take this opportunity to tell you why I have spoken out against the UCI-MSU (which I am sure you are now aware.) As a Christian, I have very strong feelings about anti-Semitism (Jewish). I have spent years in Germany, and am very-well versed in the Third Reich and Holocaust. The MSU at UCI regularly brings in virulent speakers who are not only anti-Semitic but anti-American as well)Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Alim Musa, Mohammed Al-Asi-Dr Levine can tell you who they are). These speakers also glorify suicide bombings in Israel. It is my position that this had led to an atmosphere of anti-Semitism on this campus whenever these people appear here. I have and will continue to speak out against this, as well as the unwillingness of the university administration to confront it.
I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that while our nation has a tradition of freedom of religion (which has included Islam), we would never submit to having a religion imposed on us. The Europeans might, but not Americans. We have fought too hard to win our freedoms to ever allow that to happen.
I have one last question and one last comment.
Question: Could you explain the connection between the Brotherhood and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent the years of the 2nd World War in Berlin as an ally of Adolf Hitler?
Comment: I have said this before and will say it again. I have no problem with Muslims defending their religion. Muslims should, indeed, defend Islam. However, they don't need to defend it from non-Muslims. In my view, they need to defend it from those other Muslims who engage in terror in the name of Islam and thus, bring discredit to the religion all over the world.
I thank you for your response."
October 9, 2008 9:31 AM
To date, there has been no further word from Mr El-Houdaibi. My last questions remain unanswered. I assume he is no longer in Irvine. Perhaps he is touring other American universities trying to convince listeners that the Brotherhood is a peaceful reform organization. Perhaps, he is back in Egypt. Since Ikhwan apparently reads this blog, perhaps they can get a message to Mr El-Houdaiby that I am still awaiting his response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
From Ibrahim El Houdaiby Again
Dear Gary, Sorry for not responding earlier, I have been travelling back and then needed some rest and was jet lagged
Anyway,here are some responses:
1- it is very strange that you ask me to prove that the document is false, the opposite should be the question. I should ask you to prove it is authentic, isnt that the proper thing?
2- The MB has no presence in North America, and we are not associated with any organizations there, and again: there is nothing whatsoever that suggests we are associated in any way possible with the document, even if proven authentic, which is not the case so far. It is not enough to find some Muslim fanatic writing something on destroying the West to make a claim that this is what Islamists want to do, or that this is the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology
3- well you wont understand how shariah and democracy are compatable simply because you have a certain understanding of Shariah and you dont wanna change it, have you read what I recommeneded on that (Shariah objectives of al Qaradawi?) by the way the vast majority of Muslims (According to a gallop survey) support the shariah being a source of legislation (some the only source, but thats not me), just like the vast majority of Americans (according to the same survey) support that the bible should be a source of legislation (again, some want it the only source), so is that anti-democratic? is having a value system that guides the society based on its own preferences anti-democratic, im sorry you missed the first part of my lecture cuz I discussed that
4- You know we Muslims are Semitics too, so the claim we are anti Semetics is absurd. It was not Muslims who slaughtered jews in an inhuman manner in the holocaust, which was in fact condemned by Hassan al Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood's founder. We are only opposed to Zionism and not Judiasm. We are opposed to a movement that undermines the humanity of others, a racist movement (according to UN resolutions) that has driven thousands of Palestinians out of their homeland, and has slaughtered and continues to slaughter thousands of others. Nazism was inhuman, horrible in a way words can not describe, it just dehumanized Jews, calling them "useless eaters" who are of no use to the society, and so decided to get rid of them, horrible, but how is that different that a movement which simply dehumanizes an entire population of a country, denies their right of return, kills 10s of them EVERY SINGLE DAY, and refuses to comply with 66 (YES, 66) UN resolutions calling for the withdrawal from occupied territories?
Amin Husayni's position vis a vis Nazism was horrible, but you cant just blame the group for that, especially when the founder has written condemning the holocaust.
I am not aware of what your MSU has been doing, nothing that I should be following I think, so I dunno why is that being brought up as part of our exchange
I dont understand how Islam is being imposed on you as you claim? Islam could not be imposed on anyone, anywhere, simply because that goes against the very principles of Islam, "Let there be no compulsion in religion"
then finally regarding your comment, I agree that Muslims have a huge battle to fight against terrorism, and in fact moderate like myself have to fighting on 2 fronts all the time, we have to be fighting against radicalism from both sides
As I said in the lecture you clearly missed: 2 weeks before I came I was called an infedel because of an aricle I've written, and then the radical right wing in your state was calling me a radical when I they knew about the lecture, so both ends are equally dangerous for me, they are representatives of the two extremes in this world that would eventually lead (if followed and empowered) to a clash of civilizations, very dangerous to all of course
Mr El-Houdaiby,
Thank you for your response. I will try to respond to your points.
1- "it is very strange that you ask me to prove that the document is false, the opposite should be the question. I should ask you to prove it is authentic, isnt that the proper thing?"
I would say that if the document was admitted in the Holyland Foundation trial as a government exhibit, it is assumed to be authentic (at least in a legal sense). The defense has every opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the document if they think it is false. The judge decides if it will be admitted to the trial.
In regards to that document, I still would like to know if you were familiar with it on the day you saw it at UCI. In other words, was that the first time you were made aware of the document?
2- "The MB has no presence in North America, and we are not associated with any organizations there, and again: there is nothing whatsoever that suggests we are associated in any way possible with the document, even if proven authentic, which is not the case so far. It is not enough to find some Muslim fanatic writing something on destroying the West to make a claim that this is what Islamists want to do, or that this is the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology"
It seems you are conceding the possibility that the document is authentic.
3 ".....just like the vast majority of Americans (according to the same survey) support that the bible should be a source of legislation (again, some want it the only source),..."
I can assure you that the majority of Americans or Christians do not want the Bible to be a source of legislation (unless you are referring to the 10 Commandments-Thou shalt not kill, steal etc). Those Christians who want it to be the only source are very few and have no influence. Our separation of Church and State would not allow it.
As for Shariah, aside from the separation of state issue, what could never be allowed in our country are concepts like "Honor killings", stoning deaths for adultery, death for apostates (Muslims who leave the religion, and "Dhimmi status for non-Muslims.
(paying taxes, etc)
I would be grateful if you could discuss these aspects of Shariah.
4 I am fully aware that Arabs are also Semitic people, yet in our lexicon, anti-Semitism is used to refer specifically to Jews.
Thanks for acknowledging the evil of Al Hussayni.
I don't think it would be useful to get into a long debate on the Israel-Palestinian issue. Certainly, the Palestinians have legitimate grievances. I simply think that Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. I only want what is the policy of the US Govt. (Two states living side by side in peace (if not love in the short term-but an eventual reconciliaton).
"The MB has no presence in North America, and we are not associated with any organizations there, and again: there is nothing whatsoever that suggests we are associated in any way possible with the document, even if proven authentic,"
It is commonly believed in the US that the Muslim Student Associations are a creation of the Muslim brotherhood. In the case of UCI, the MSU has sponsored speakers like the ones I mentioned in my last post. For example, Mohammed Al-Asi has stated at UCI,
"Jews are low-life ghetto-dwellers" and "You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you cannot take the ghetto out of the Jew".
Are you willing to condemn statements like that, and do you state in no uncertain terms that there is not and has never been a connection between the Muslim brotherhood and the Muslim Student Associations in the US?
Again, I thank you for your response and look forward to your next response.
Gary Fouse
Ibrahim El Houdaiby
Ok I'll try to make that as brief as possible
1- I followed the holyland foundation trial, simply because right wing radicals tried to associate this group to the Muslim Brotherhood, and I use google alerts which send me anything that has "Muslim Brotherhood" written, so I was sent these links, and I did read this document before, and I find it absurd, silly and radical and in no way represents the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no link whatsoever between Holyland foundation and the Muslim Brotherhood, neither organizational nor intellectual. And the court has rejected the case, as far as I've been following. I hope that answers that one
2- Actually there was a survey conducted by Gallop where the findings were that around 8 out of 10 Muslims wanting to have Shariah as the prime source of legislation, and over 90% said that constitutions should guarantee freedom of speech, other democratic tenets. and this tells you about our understanding of Shariah which is not similar to yours, again this is a very short place to explain what shariah is about, but again I'm sure you didnt bother to go back to the sources I cited in my previous comments. But let me give you one more source though, Esposito and Mogahed's "Who Speaks for Islam"
3- Why is it not useful to go into the Palestinian debate? and how do you define terrorism in that sense? does what Isreal do qualify as terrorism, or is that limited to Palestinian in a racist, facist manner? What about the 66 UN resolutions I told you about? What about Isreal's practices that would make the 2 state solution you are supporting impossible: the wall (denounced by ICJ), settlements (against all agreements, declarations and UN resolutions), the mass killing of Palestinians and Jerusalem? what about the refugees right of return? why do you think you could support the killing of thousands of Palestinians and still remain human, while those who use their right to resist, to live, even in a wrong way, are inhuman? What is a Jewish child killed in an attack more important that 10s, or actually 100s of Arabs who are killed every month? Why do we all remember the Israeli soldier and forget about 11,000 Palestinian prisoners? you think that is not important, and that is marginal, and you want to leave all that aside and talk about whether apostacy is accepted in Islam, well, guess what, it is. "Let there be no compulsion in religion," and honor killings are a tradition that goes against Islam, non Muslim have equal citizenship stances and i think you were in the room when i answered that question, and you know what? Shariah is not about Hodood, shariah literally means the way, it is the Muslim way of life that includes morals and ethics, rituals and transaction (both moderated and not moderated by the state), if you do understand this broader picture that would help you understand more about Islam, which you might not be interested in anyway.
Yet again, do you care that much about our human rights? you stance on the Palestinian issue does not support that claim
and yes, I am willing to denouce any racist stance against Jews, be that the horrible holocaust, or racist statements made by anyone, but I also, and with the same strength, denounce any racist stance against anyone, most importantly (in your discourse) against Islam and Islamists, and of course against the Palestinian people. I have nothing against Judaism or Jews, but of course I have a problem with Zionism, and that is not a racist stance, that is a stance against racism
I mean: you want to make sure that we will have equal rights for non Muslim citizens, which will happen, simply because that is what we believe in, but what about the Arab Israeli citizens? what about a state that solely, purely bases its identity on a religion, one single religion, with no other source of identity. do you or do you not qualify this as racism? I hope to get an answer
Dear all,
I have a unique perspective on shariah law because my family were victimized under this rule. My parents & grandparents are Jews from Middle Eastern lands who lived under shariah law, suffering extensively and treated no better than third-class citizens.
Consider that the historic Nazi connection to today's Islamic terrorism is Haj Amin al-Husseini (who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood). He became a Nazi agent after meeting Adolf Eichmann, an architect of the Holocaust. With Nazi funds he organized the Arab Revolt of 1936-39 which led to the British stopping Jewish immigration to the British controlled Palestine Mandate (also known as the spoils of the Turkish Empire). This facilitated the "Final Solution" by closing off the avenue of refuge. In 1941, the mufti orchestrated a short-lived, Nazi-backed generals' coup in Iraq.
The Iraq coup was followed by the Farhud, a pogrom against Baghdad's Jews, an event viewed by Sephardic/Mizrahi Jews as comparable to the German "Kristallnacht." The Mufti obtained Hitler's assurance in November 1941 that after dealing with the Jews of Europe, Hitler would treat the Jews of the Middle East similarly. Hundreds of Jews were killed, raped and maimed. We are Iraqi on my father's side and very familiar with the Farhud pogrom.
Historically, Jews were oppressed individuals living in what became Arab lands. Some periods, depending on a ruler, were better than others. This largely would depend on how strictly shariah law was enforced. If it was enforced rigidly, life was terrible. If it was not, life could be just fine. But Jews were always third-class citizens. In 1912, for example, the Franco-Moroccan Treaty signed in Fez made Morocco a French protectorate. Muslim rioters massacred 60 Jews in Fez, left 10,000 homeless. In 1907, in Casablanca, 30 Jews were killed. 200 women, girls and boys abducted, raped. In 1790 the Pogrom in Tetouan (Morocco) saw that all Jews were stripped naked, many women were raped, and most homes ransacked. Also, in Yemen all Jewish orphans would be taken from their relatives and forcibly converted to Islam. These are just a few examples. Jews had to pay a special taxes in Islamic areas and were considered "protected people" (in accordance with shariah law). In reality, however, they were not always protected and they were often treated in despicable and vile ways. With an increase of Islamic-Arab nationalism in the 1900s and fanatical rulers taking control, Jews found that they had no choice but to leave the lands to which they were indigenous (most went to Israel)-- the lands that they lived in predating the rise of Christianity and Islam.
Shariah law is not compatible with democracy. Women, homosexuals and minorities (Jews, Hindus, Ba'hai, Coptic Christians and other Christians) have not lived well under shariah law.
While I am Jewish, I am Middle Eastern and will always identify as such. My parents often speak in Arabic amongst themselves, we listen to Arabic and Middle Eastern music, and eat Middle Eastern food. Even the way we pray is Middle Eastern in its origins as our ancestors did. There are many wonderful and endearing things about the Middle East. Hospitality, history, the beauty of the region. However, this is a region that has become increasingly radicalized. Totally enforcing shariah law in a country like Egypt could only make matters worse. Certainly it will not make the situation of non-males and minorities exceedingly difficult in a region that already faces many problems.
I'd like to end this with a quote from an Egyptian Jew who I greatly admire:
"Along with the rise of Arab nationalism and Arab independence, life for Jews in Egypt and other Arab countries became intolerable. All this started happening years before Israel was established. Within a 20-year period starting in 1945, nearly a million Jews were forced out of Arab countries. Being Jewish was criminalized in Egypt in the late 1940s. Other Arab states such as Iraq, Libya, and Syria, passed similar laws. Jews began facing iron walls of discrimination and harassment by the authorities. Most of us were dispossessed. Our schools, homes, synagogues, businesses, farms, and hospitals, were all confiscated by Arab governments. Our rich, 3,000-year-old culture and heritage was decimated. No trial, no jury, no justice." -Joseph Wahed
Regards,
Reut R. Cohen
Clarification:
*Certainly it will not make the situation of non-males and minorities less difficult in a region that already faces many problems.
Also, consider watching The Forgotten Refugees.
Thank you, Reut.
As I am preparing my own response back to Mr El-Hudaibi, I invite him to respond to Reut.
Mr Houdaibi,
Thank you for your latest response.
Point nimber 1 of your message-
As I see it, the basis for your rejection of the document is that it does not represent the philosophy of the MB. Actually, I had hoped you could point to some report, either the press or offcial statement of the court that the document had been shown to be false. There does not to me seem to be such a report or finding.
Point number 2.
I promise I will look into the sources you have quoted. I am especially interested in Al-Banna. As for Esposito, if you are referring to the American professor, I am not too impressed with him, but I will look into his opinion.
As for the Palestinian issue. It is complicated, so I will give you my basic opinions
As for the UN and their resolutions, I consider the UN to corrupt, ineffective, anti-American, and anti-Israel. I don't even think the US should be in the UN let alone supply so much money to its budget.
(Other than that, I think they are great.)
You mention the Wall that israel built. I think it was entirely reasonable to build a wall to stop the entry of suicide bombers who kill innocent men, women and children-by design.
I am aware that Israelis have killed Palestinians-sometimes by design in assassinating Terrorist leaders or fighting against Hezbollah. Unfortunately, by-standers have also been killed, which is sad. But that is not by design. I am sorry, but I do not see a moral equivalence between deliberate blowing up of busses and pizza parlors and the killing of Palestinian fighters like Hamas and Hezbollah who shoot rockets into civilian areas.
You indicated that the two-state solution is impossible. I take that to mean that YOU WANT IT ALL. If that is the case, then I ask why my govt bothers to mediate in this mess.
As for Shariah, have you heard reports that Iran (which persecutes members of the Bahai faith)is passing legislation to make apostacy a crime punishable by death (under state law-not religious law). What about Saudi Arabia and their laws?
Finally, I hope you will take the time to read the posting which appears above by Reut Cohen, a Jewish woman of Middle Eastern descent, who is a friend and associate, as well as being a recent graduate of UCI.
Your comments to her would be greatly appreciated.
The Muslim Brotherhood reforming is like the KKK reforming. This is the same group that helped to start al Qaeda and Hamas. Sharia law is repressive and brutal. End of story.
Ibrahim El Houdaiby
again, and hopefully my last response cuz I really have no time for that
1- Could you provide ANY evidence proving the authenticity of this document? Could you provide ANYTHING linking it to the Muslim Brotherhood by any means? anything more credible than the group of radical right wing blogs, which are not any better than al Qaeda radicalism and intolerance
2- If you think the UN is anti American then what is the point of reference we could refer to in identifying international law? I suppose you know more than I do that UN resolutions are international law, and according to that (whether you like it or not) Zionism is a racist movement (I think its impossible to argue otherwise), regarding the 2 state solution I was saying that what Israel is doing will make reaching such a solution impossible, except of course if you want a Palestinian state in Gaza, which will not be accepted by the Palestinian people, nor by Egypt of course. And yes I am refering to Esposito of Georgetown Univeristy, not to his analysis (which I think is much deeper than generalizations and misconceptions of the radical right wing) but rather to the survey results presented in the book I pointed to.
I hope I am getting you wrong, but you refuse to accept UN resolutions, if so, then ask me why should Iran do so? and on what basis did your country invade Iraq?
As for targeting civilians, this is not to defend Hamas of course, but they did propose in 1997 and again in 1998 that both sides stop targeting civilians, Israeli government did not accept the offer, and continued to target civilians
now again: are you trying to convince me that the Israeli army is unprofessional to the extent thtat it needs to kill tens of children and women, damage dozens of houses, and arrest thousands of Palestinians in order to arrest or kill someone they are targeting, you need a better argument I think. This is clearly intentional, look at the assassination of Mohamed Al Durra, and of the 7 family members in Gaza who were trying to have some fun and enjoy 1 day on the beach, and hundreds of other incidents
Finally, about Shariah, you can only legitimately assess the Brotherhood's understanding of Shariah from our literature, not from the practices of regimes we condemn, or else we could easily say that secularism means crackdown on freedom of speech, torture, corruption and mass arrests cuz that is what most regimes in the Middle East do
Mr El-Houdaiby,
Since you appear to have no more time for our exchange, let me make my final points.
1 I am sorry you chose not to respond to the post by Reut Cohen, but I certainly understand why.
2 You quoted me a couple of names, Yusuf al- Qaradawi and Hasan al-Banna (Muslim Brotherhood founder):
Qaradawi (for the benefit of the reader, a long-time Muslim Brotherhood scholar) This man may fit your example of a moderate who rejects violence, but that is not the case when it comes to suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.
He is quoted in telling a BBC reporter:
"An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies because she is a soldier."
"I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice."
"Allah almighty is just; through his infinate wisdom, he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies inot bombs as Palestinians do."
As for the MB founder, al-Banna;
In his book, the Way of Jihad, he quotes passages in the Qu'ran that speak to Jihad (in connection with fighting and dying in battle) and adds his comments, such as'
Qu'ran- Surat-aal-Imran (3), ayah 156-158
"O, you who believe! Be not like those who disbelieve (hypocrites) and who say to their brethren when they travel through the earth or go out to fight: "If they had stayed with us, they would not have died or been killed so that Allah may make it a cause of regret in their hearts. It is Allah that gives life and cause death. And Allah is all-Seer of what you do. And if you are killed or die in the way of Allah. forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all that they amass (of worldly wealth etc). And whther you die or are killed verily, until Allah you shall be gathered.
al-Banna's explanation
" Notice how forgiveness and mercy are associated with slaying and death in Allah's way in the first verse, and how the second verse does not refer to this because it is devoid of the idea of Jihad. In this verse, there is an indication of the fact that cowardice is one of the characteristics of unbelievers, but not of believers. And notice how today the unbelievers seem to be brave and the believers seem to be the cowards."
I could quote much more of al-Banna's words, but you get the point. This doesn't sound to me like a man of peace.
Understand that I am not quoting from (an English translation) of the Qu'ran to criticize Islam itself as a religion, rather to make my point that al-Banna has
uttered words that contradict your claims that any reference to violence by the MB is against the very principles Al-Banna stood for.
Finally, I am sorry to say that I cannot accept that the MB is just a moderate organization that wants to build bridges in a peaceful way. It seems to me and many others that the aims of your organization are to infiltrate other nations and work within the system to bring Islam and Shariah law to the rest of the world-no matter how long it may take. I think the history of the MB and the document that came out of the Homeland Foundation trial (which I accept as authentic) demonstrate this.
I realize that you are going around and convincing gullible university audiences that your organization has nothing but good intentions. I, however, do not buy it.
Well-said, Gary.
Respectfully,
Reut R. Cohen
I have just reviewed Hassan El Banna's literature, and he has NO BOOK entitled the way to Jihad, I think that says a lot about your sources
Ahmed Amin
Ahmed,
I note that you put Book in capitals. Does that mean that there may be a treatise or paper of document in that name by Al-Banna?
If I characterized al-Banna's work as a book, that may be an error. It doesn't take away the main point that al-Banna wrote it.
It does appear that the WORK has variations of the title (The way of Jihad, On Jihad, Jihad etc, which I assume is due to the translation from Arabic to English.
The important point is that al-Banna produced it, whether it be a book, treatise, chapter of a book, or whatever.
Ar you claiming that al-Banna never produced the words I quoted?
http://islamic-world.net/book/jihad_preface.htm
Hi Gary,
Ahmed is lying to you. Banna definitely wrote those words. I don't know if you can see the full link above.
Go to islamic-world.net and search it if you can't see the link above. This text is readily available in the Arab world.
The Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters are liars. The United States government needs to wake up and must stop inviting terrorists to the white house.
Matt,
I think what Ahmed was doing was nitpicking that the quotes I used were not from a BOOK, therefore, my sources were flawed. It was I not my sources who used the word book. If that was an error, so be it. The fact remains that al-Banna did write those words, be it a treatise, essay or whatever.
He said. I stand by what I wrote. And no, I don't buy this business that the MB is peaceful.
Thank you for your input.
Post a Comment