No, there is no "taqiyya" doctrine that lets all Muslims lie for the good of the faith

[BrainGlutton]

RWs seem to constantly invoke it -- "Who cares what the MB in Egypt says they're going to do?! They really want an Egyptian theocracy and a pan-Islamic Caliphate! You can't believe anything they say -- taqiyya!"

There is such thing as Taqiyya. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya) It is a Shi'a Islamic term for "concealing one's faith in dangerous circumstances," which is only common sense if you think about it. Sunni Muslims see things differently:

While Sunnis agree that it is allowed to conceal the faith to protect their lives, they greatly differ with the Shia point of view. There is no such terminology as taqiyya in Sunni jurisprudence. Protecting one's belief during extreme or exigent circumstances is called "idtirar" (إضطرار) and this word is not specific to concealing the faith. For example, one is allowed to consume prohibited or haraam food to protect one's life under the jurisprudence of idtirar. However, in no way does this suggest that this is used as a means to promote the religion. In Sunni theological framework, announcing the truth and being witness for it has great significance. Prominent personalities who announced the truth and went through the hardship for announcing truth are highly revered among Sunnis.[9] Therefore, Taqiyya as a separate concept does not exist in Sunni jurisprudence. While idtirar is allowed in some cases, concealment of faith has never been revered or praised in Sunni schools of thought.

Practically all Muslims in Egypt and North Africa are Sunni. Needless to say, attributing taqiyya thinking to them is like charging all those Mormon and JW and Baptist missionaries with plotting to bring us all under the rule of the Pope of Rome.

[Bricker]

Excellent post.

[BrainGlutton]

Thank you.

Here's what it's about, I think: Taqiyya is a Shi'ite thing. Muslims are supposed to proclaim their faith and never hide it. But the Shi'ites were the underdogs for much of Islamic history, and sometimes and in some places had to profess their beliefs underground, as it were; taqiyya told them it was all right to do so, if proclaiming Shi'a doctrine publicly would get them in trouble. That is all. Nothing about "Lie to those Sunni dogs so we can undermine them in secret from within!", which is something like what RWs seem to think it means.

The concept -- and the intra-Islamic controversy over it -- really should not be all that hard for Westerners to understand. Christianity has faced similar problems in its history -- from the start, in fact. It was an illegal, underground religion and Christians could hardly admit it publicly. Some even made the required public sacrifice to Rome or Caesar, just to get the magistrate off their backs. And even after Christianity was legalized, Christians were divided by the Donatist Controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatist) (If a priest, under state pressure, committed the mortal sins of apostasy and idolatry, were his sacraments still valid? The question was decided in the affirmative -- a priest in a state of mortal sin remains a priest and can administer valid communions, absolutions, marriages, etc. Which has a reassuring relevance to contemporary Catholics, on which I will not here comment further.)

[wmfellows]

Isn't this Idtirar thing the same as the Jewish precept that if threatened with death or what not it's okay to pretend to covert, etc? I seem to recall reading something about htis precept in Judiac law (re Jews in Europe).

[Sevastopol]

Excellent post. Is this equivocal?

[Nametag]

No, it was much shorter.

[AK84]

Taqiyya means pillow. End of discussion.

[RickJay]

A good OP that will have no effect at all on our resident Islamophobes, because they'll simply assume the OP is "taquiyya."

[Monty]

Needless to say, attributing taqiyya thinking to them is like charging all those Mormon and JW and Baptist missionaries with plotting to bring us all under the rule of the Pope of Rome.

I've actually heard in person some wingnut state that the Mormons, JWs, et al, are actually plots of the Roman pontiff.

[BrainGlutton]

I've actually heard in person some wingnut state that the Mormons, JWs, et al, are actually plots of the Roman pontiff.

Sound like a Jack Chick plot (in one of his comix he blamed Islam on the RCC).

Just remember: If Jack Chick believes something, no matter how outrageous . . . he can't be the only one.

[Johanna]

Taqiyya means pillow. End of discussion.

Nope. The word تقية taqīyah is derived from the Arabic verbal root W-Q-Y, meaning 'protect'. It literally means protecting oneself from danger. The word you're thinking of is تكية takyah or takiyah, which is Persian for 'pillow, support'. The former uses the letter ق qāf and the latter uses the letter ك kāf.

The word takyah in Arabic is only used in the extended metaphorical sense of a religious institution run by Sufis, providing retreat space or social services.

Carry on with the discussion.

[AK84]

Nope. The word تقية taqīyah is derived from the Arabic verbal root W-Q-Y, meaning 'protect'. It literally means protecting oneself from danger. The word you're thinking of is تكية takyah or takiyah, which is Persian for 'pillow, support'. The former uses the letter ق qāf and the latter uses the letter ك kāf.

The word takyah in Arabic is only used in the extended metaphorical sense of a religious institution run by Sufis, providing retreat space or social services.

Carry on with the discussion.
Interesting. Thanks. But the point is made, I had never heard of the term until recently and I can bet you that most people who are muslims will have no idea what it is or means and urdu speakers will simply say in a puzzled tone "a pillow"?

I must say it is amusing, informative and at times exasperating to be told about some concept or law or tradition about Islam from a non muslim westerner often times using a technical term I have never heard off, for instance "dhimmi".

[BrainGlutton]

I must say it is amusing, informative and at times exasperating to be told about some concept or law or tradition about Islam from a non muslim westerner often times using a technical term I have never heard off, for instance "dhimmi".

No doubt it is amusing, informative and at time exasperating to Communists to hear RWs misattribute the phrase "useful idiot" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) to Lenin, and so on. (As they so often do even after correction, IME.) This is an enterprise in which intellectual honesty has no home.

[wmfellows]

No doubt it is amusing, informative and at time exasperating to Communists to hear RWs misattribute the phrase "useful idiot" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) to Lenin, and so on. (As they so often do even after correction, IME.) This is an enterprise in which intellectual honesty has no home.

As anyone reading George Orwell and other communists, however misattributed that is, the phrase sticks because it was at that time a quite accurate description of at least Stalinist approaches to Western hard-left sympathisers. Communists crying over such is rather crocodile tears for me.

[BrainGlutton]

As anyone reading George Orwell and other communists, however misattributed that is, the phrase sticks because it was at that time a quite accurate description of at least Stalinist approaches to Western hard-left sympathisers. Communists crying over such is rather crocodile tears for me.

But now the RW uses it for practically anything, calling non-socialist Obama supporters, or anyone who doesn't hate Muslims, etc., "useful idiots" of the bugbear in question; and they still keep attributing it to Lenin.

Oh, and Orwell was no Communist and had a lot of things to say about Communists. He always called himself a Socialist (with a capital "S" despite non-identification with any particular socialist party -- convention of his time and place, I suppose).

[wmfellows]

....
Oh, and Orwell was no Communist and had a lot of things to say about Communists. He always called himself a Socialist ....

Yes I know, I made a mistake in editing (it should have read and ex-communists).

[BrainGlutton]

Yes I know, I made a mistake in editing (it should have read and ex-communists).

He was not an ex-Communist either.

[tomndebb]

Orwell's politics are a hijack. Go open a new thread.

[ /Modding ]

[Condescending Robot]

People lie often. Muslim or not. I don't need to attribute any particularly Muslim doctrine to anyone to question whether a group in politics might not be on the up-and-up. I've noticed in past discussions (not necessarily on this forum) that questioning the veracity of any statement regarding Islam is often met with a similar response as the OP, accusing me of believing in the "taqqiya" thing, which I have never accused anyone of using.

[Johanna]

I can bet you that most people who are muslims will have no idea what it is or means and urdu speakers will simply say in a puzzled tone "a pillow"?
No—because in Urdu the letters qāf and kāf are pronounced differently, even though they aren't in Hindi or other Indo-Aryan languages. I learned to speak Urdu from Dakhni dialect speakers. I don't use Dakhni myself, but I noticed that they make a stronger differentiation between the two sounds than in standard Urdu.
I must say it is amusing, informative and at times exasperating to be told about some concept or law or tradition about Islam from a non muslim westerner often times using a technical term I have never heard off, for instance "dhimmi".
I must differ, considering how in Islam one's learning is given more importance than one's ethnicity. There are other matters given as much importance as learning, such as belief and praxis. But still--"Westerners"? There are lots of Westerners who are Muslim, and lots more who are learned in Islamic studies 'n' stuff. I bet it would be taken as offensive if a Westerner said how amusing and exasperating for them it is when Desis learn knowledge of Western origin, like computer science, better than most Westerners. I guess I just can't see knowledge of objectively falsifiable facts as dependent on ethnicity or even faith, but rather this kind of knowledge is open and in theory equally accessible to all. There are ways of knowing dependent on the experience of belonging to a particular group. But this instance isn't one of them.

P.S. the Arabic word for pillow is wisādah.

[FinnAgain]

People lie often. Muslim or not. I don't need to attribute any particularly Muslim doctrine to anyone to question whether a group in politics might not be on the up-and-up. I've noticed in past discussions (not necessarily on this forum) that questioning the veracity of any statement regarding Islam is often met with a similar response as the OP, accusing me of believing in the "taqqiya" thing, which I have never accused anyone of using.

That seems to be the root of it. Glutton was recent called out after making the laughably transparent claim that the MB was no more extreme than the American religious right. That their PR is being eaten up and vomited back out by a certain segment of their target audience is, unfortunately, unsurprising.

The Brotherhood would seek "the preservation of honor" by stoning adulterers, punishing gays, requiring Muslim women to cover their heads and shoulders in public and killing Muslims who leave their faith (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-02-14-1Aegypt14_CV_N.htm)

But, well, ya know... I suppose if someone claims "And they're saying it's 'taquiya!'" then it's okay.

[wmfellows]

I know Orwell's politics, I didn't mean to say he was an ex communist, I meant for an "and" to be there. I think that ends the discussion.

[cosmosdan]

Hey!! This isn't a thread about Tequila!!


I'm Out a heah!

[BrainGlutton]

Hey!! This isn't a thread about Tequila!!


I'm Out a heah!

No, I'm afraid Muslims know very little about tequila.

[BrainGlutton]

That seems to be the root of it. Glutton was recent called out after making the laughably transparent claim that the MB was no more extreme than the American religious right. That their PR is being eaten up and vomited back out by a certain segment of their target audience is, unfortunately, unsurprising.



But, well, ya know... I suppose if someone claims "And they're saying it's 'taquiya!'" then it's okay.

:rolleyes: The MB in Egypt, or some representatives of it, are saying, now, not that the MB has gone secular, but only that, in essence, it finds secular democracy acceptable for the time being, and will support it and work with it (implicitly, until such time as an Islamic republic is politically possible). Now, they might be lying about even that. But that's just lying as political movements lie, not because some Islamic doctrine tells them it is moral to lie in such circumstances. There is no such doctrine. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. (Well, that, and that the RW seems to do dishonest things of that kind a lot these days, see above discussion of "useful idiots.") Let all please discontinue use of the word taqiyya to mean such a doctrine, on this Board and anywhere else.

[FinnAgain]

the MB in Egypt, or some representatives of it, are saying, now, not that the MB has gone secular, but only that, in essence, it finds secular democracy acceptable for the time being

No. They're putting out certain PR bits that are picked up and amplified by others.
This should not be confused for what they're actually saying.

What they're actually saying about secular democracy is what I quoted and cited.
"The Brotherhood would seek "the preservation of honor" by stoning adulterers, punishing gays, requiring Muslim women to cover their heads and shoulders in public and killing Muslims who leave their faith."
This is the party of Qutb and Al-Banna, and it's going to take a lot more than a few PR releases for them to show that they're really ready to embrace a secular republic ruled by laws which enshrine the fundamental rights of minority groups.




But that's just lying as political movements lie, not because some Islamic doctrine tells them it is moral to lie in such circumstances.

Of course. How many times has someone who's not Valteron argued otherwise on the Dope? And a discussion of useful idiots is hardly the sole province of the right wing. If you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow, after all. Many folks have been willing to champion communism, the Iranian revolution, etc... Even when the actual events were diametrically opposed to what their western champions' politics actually were.

A group that would murder adulterers by stoning them to death, murder apostates for the crime of exercising freedom of religion, persecuted gays and subject women to specific 'decency' standards is a moderate? Well, they most likely stand opposed to what most Americans on the left and right would consider to be decent, let alone sane conduct.

[Paranoid Randroid]

A group that would murder adulterers by stoning them to death, murder apostates for the crime of exercising freedom of religion, persecuted gays and subject women to specific 'decency' standards is a moderate? Well, they most likely stand opposed to what most Americans on the left and right would consider to be decent, let alone sane conduct.

I'm generally sympathetic to your position contra BrainGlutton, but I urge you to be a little fairer here. Nowhere in this thread has anyone called the Muslim Brotherhood "moderate". You and BrainGlutton seem (in fact) to be in violent agreement about that group's willingness to throw out some PR lies when its ultimate goal is not democracy.

Further: whether or not belief in taqiyya holds wide purchase on the SDMB, it's clearly a myth held onto by a large contingent of less -- erm -- discerning right-leaning individuals. I don't think this is a strawman or otherwise an illegitimate topic for discussion.

[AK84]

No—because in Urdu the letters qāf and kāf are pronounced differently, even though they aren't in Hindi or other Indo-Aryan languages. I learned to speak Urdu from Dakhni dialect speakers. I don't use Dakhni myself, but I noticed that they make a stronger differentiation between the two sounds than in standard Urdu.

I must differ, considering how in Islam one's learning is given more importance than one's ethnicity. There are other matters given as much importance as learning, such as belief and praxis. But still--"Westerners"? There are lots of Westerners who are Muslim, and lots more who are learned in Islamic studies 'n' stuff. I bet it would be taken as offensive if a Westerner said how amusing and exasperating for them it is when Desis learn knowledge of Western origin, like computer science, better than most Westerners. I guess I just can't see knowledge of objectively falsifiable facts as dependent on ethnicity or even faith, but rather this kind of knowledge is open and in theory equally accessible to all. There are ways of knowing dependent on the experience of belonging to a particular group. But this instance isn't one of them.

P.S. the Arabic word for pillow is wisādah.

The qaf and kaf differentiation is something that is often lost is normal speech, in the media if someone from outside of Karachi is shown emphasizing the qaf is it is often shorthand for "pretentious prick". So a Pakistani like myself will ordinarily not differentiate in normal speech and will not realise the difference unless the words are written/ So writing about taqqiya in Roman letters or in the spoken form will elicit the same response as was given by me, "what the hell is it about the pillows".

On the second issue I would disagree. Coming from a muslim family and one where knowledge of religion was hammered into us at an early age, I can safely say that concepts such as taqqiya or dhimmi never came up except in the most abstract terms. I never knew what the terms were and my own knowledge of religion is quite broad thanks to my grandparents.

Meharbani!

[FinnAgain]

I'm generally sympathetic to your position contra BrainGlutton, but I urge you to be a little fairer here. Nowhere in this thread has anyone called the Muslim Brotherhood "moderate".

You're correct that it wasn't in this thread, it was a couple back.

Based on this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-brotherhood-20110215,0,4895817.story) article, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has changed in recent decades and is changing still and yet is still too stuffy and old-fashioned for the younger membership. These are not your Ayatollah's Islamists. Now they're a lot like the American religious-right (only less violent, less bigoted and less ignorant). Really, they're more like the center-right Christian Democrat parties of Europe than anything else. What's the big deal?

And while I haven't seen much in the news about the MB and taquiya, that the MB was used as an example to open this thread put me in mind of the earlier comment.

[BrainGlutton]

But, well, ya know... I suppose if someone claims "And they're saying it's 'taquiya!'" then it's okay.

And do you have any idea how intellectually dishonest this is?! Also irrelevant.

[FinnAgain]

Yes, now that you mention it I did think it was pretty intellectually dishonest to cover your mistake about how "moderate" the MB was by starting a thread alleging that those who criticize such formulations are crying "taquiya!". Didn't feel I needed to put that fine a point on it though.

[BrainGlutton]

Yes, now that you mention it I did think it was pretty intellectually dishonest to cover your mistake about how "moderate" the MB was by starting a thread alleging that those who criticize such formulations are crying "taquiya!".

That is not what I did.

And for Og's and Allah's sake, if you must misuse the word, please learn to spell it right. One "q", no "u", two "y"s. This ain't Qaddafi/Gaddafi/Khadaffi we're dealing with were.

[FinnAgain]

Yeah... that's pretty much exactly what you did. Unless, of course, you can point to your retraction of you claim that the MB was somehow more moderate than American religious righters? Or speaking of this awful menace of claiming that the MB is bad because of "Taqiya!!!", please cite, say, a dozen MSM articles and/or dopers (who aren't Valteron) who've made the claim that you're responding to. Should be easy, yes?
So a cite of your retraction and a cite of what you've actually responding to would be downright spiffy. Rather than, of course, a thread that suggests that those who criticize claims that the MB is "moderate" are doing so because they're alleging Islamic-based-dishonesty.

Those cites will be along quickly, yes?

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, and cites, surely you can find a cite for me "misusing" the word, yes?
We can ignore your bit of ignorance about how there's only one correct English spelling, even though it's a transliterated word, just like Quadafi.

[BrainGlutton]

Yeah... that's pretty much exactly what you did.

I started two different GD threads at roughly the same time on different but related topics currently much in the air. Any rhetorical connection between the two is your invention.

Or speaking of this awful menace of claiming that the MB is bad because of "Taqiya!!!",

And I never said that here or there. I do not recall anyone citing to the purported "taqiyya" concept in the other thread.

[BrainGlutton]

Further: whether or not belief in taqiyya holds wide purchase on the SDMB, it's clearly a myth held onto by a large contingent of less -- erm -- discerning right-leaning individuals. I don't think this is a strawman or otherwise an illegitimate topic for discussion.

Exactly.

[BrainGlutton]

But, well, ya know... I suppose if someone claims "And they're saying it's 'taquiya!'" then it's okay.

And this lameass attempt at pre-emptive strawmanning is indeed intellectually dishonest, and irrelevant, and in all ways pure-D bullshit.

[FinnAgain]

rhetorical connection

Well, gee, zero cites of your retraction. Zero cites of people on the Dope or the mainstream media making the claim you're arguing against, and the very first words of this thread are trying to suggest that people distrust your claims about the MB because of "taqiyah!!!"
Go figure.

Speaking of things you don't have cites for, still not got a cite for me "misusing" Taqiyah? Almost as if you invented the claim, perhaps?
(Figured out what "transliteration" means yet, too?)

And this lameass attempt

You've now addressed the same post three times, and still don't have any coherent points. ah well. Rather obviously, your own argument is not a strawman. I like that you think it is, though.
Yet again, do you have a retraction, anywhere, for your rather laughable claim that people who want to murder married folks who sleep around as well as people who convert from Islam to another region, and simply want to 'punish' gays are more moderate than the American religious right? Do you have any cites for anybody in the MSM or on the Dope saying that you can't trust apologias for the MB, like yours, because of "taqiyah!!!"?

Or did you, instead, make some very obviously wrong claims about how moderate the MB was and then instead of retracting, claim that anybody was saying "Who cares what the MB in Egypt says they're going to do?! They really want an Egyptian theocracy and a pan-Islamic Caliphate! You can't believe anything they say -- taqiyya!"
Just curious.
Care to provide cites for that retraction or anybody using the whole "Taqiyah!!" argument about the MB in the MSM or on the Dope?

[BrainGlutton]

Well, gee, zero cites of your retraction.

Zero relevance of the request.

[Ibn Warraq]

That is not what I did.

And for Og's and Allah's sake, if you must misuse the word, please learn to spell it right. One "q", no "u", two "y"s. This ain't Qaddafi/Gaddafi/Khadaffi we're dealing with were.


His spelling of the word is perfectly fine.

It's translitered.

[FinnAgain]

Zero

Speaking of zero... zero cites for any admission that you were incorrect about how 'moderate' the MB was. Indeed, there is no such admission at all, but you did start a thread claiming that people are disbelieving the apologia because, you claim, they state that the MB is engaged in "taqiyah!!" But you offer up absolutely no cite that people are actually disbelieving the apologia that you and others are offering up because of "taqiyah!!"
And you've provided no cite for me "misusing" the concept of Taqiyah, either, because of course it never happened.

Go figure.

[Tamerlane]

Speaking of zero... zero cites for any admission that you were incorrect about how 'moderate' the MB was.


The Egyptian MB, or at least significant factions thereof, is moderate. Relative to al Qaeda. Probably not so much relative to the Turkish AKP. But it's all on a sliding scale. If the claim is just that the EMB is as currently configured is more moderate than the jihadist-salafists like GIA/GSPC or even Hamas, I'd have to agree.

But at any rate I'd also agree this seems to be a bit of hijack to the thread.

And just for the additional pedantic quotient, while it is true that taqiyya is a Shi'a notion, it is probably worth noting that it is not even universal there. The Zaydi Shi'a in particular directly reject such dissembling as a matter of faith.

[BrainGlutton]

Speaking of zero... zero cites for any admission that you were incorrect about how 'moderate' the MB was.

See post #38.

[BrainGlutton]

The Egyptian MB, or at least significant factions thereof, is moderate. Relative to al Qaeda. Probably not so much relative to the Turkish AKP. But it's all on a sliding scale. If the claim is just that the EMB is as currently configured is more moderate than the jihadist-salafists like GIA/GSPC or even Hamas, I'd have to agree.

Much obliged if you could post that in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=597222) where it belongs, thankee-sai.

[FinnAgain]

Tamerlane: well, hell, compared to Al Quaeda almost everybody is a moderate. But people whose official position is to murder apostates and adulterers and to "punish" gays is hardly a moderate faction. That's like claiming that the Iranian theocracy is also moderate... but Glutton also has claimed that Iran is a thriving civil society.
Trying to claim, as Glutton did, they they the MB is less extreme than the American religious right is beyond absurdity. Then claiming that people are distrustful of the MB's propaganda efforts, and the Westerners who spread them, due go some sort of Islamapobic misuse of terms, when not one single Doper or MSM source is offered as a basis for such a claim?

And still no retraction from Glutton about how moderate the MB is and how the American religious right is worse. But that's okay because hey, some uncited, unquoted, unnamed people disagree with Glutton due to Islamaphobic nonsense about the MB.

See post #38.

Yes. I know. No retraction of your absurd error. No proof ghat any on the dope or in the MSM ever said anything like what you're arguing about here. No cite to back up your claim that I "misused" the concept of Taquiya.
But, after refusing to retract your error, you did start a thread alleging that people were objecting to your error based on some sort of a Islamophobic basis. You can't cite any of them though.

[Tamerlane]

Tamerlane: well, hell, compared to Al Quaeda almost everybody is a moderate.

My point, more or less. They generally don't seem to be bright-line extremists of the "let's exterminate the takfiri" sort. But they aren't the least conservative flavor of Islamism, either. And all Islamists are going to be on the conservative side of the coin relative to secularists.

Trying to claim, as Glutton did, they they the MB is less extreme than the American religious right is beyond absurdity.

I haven't been following these debates closely, as I've grown weary of this set of topics over the years. But in general, yes, EMB is probably more conservative than the average conservative American evangelical, most of whom aren't genuine theocrats ( ETA: though to be fair most Sunni Islamists aren't exactly theocrats either, some oddball Khomeini-admiring groups like the flavors of Islamic Jihad possibly excepted ). However on the fringe I'd say Christian Reconstructionists are probably loosely analogous.

[FinnAgain]

Sure, and the Dominionists are some scary fuckers. But those who want to murder adulterers and apostates and "punish" gays are anything but moderate or safe to trust with power. And arguing that people are distrustful of the MB due Islamaphobic bias, sans cite, is obfuscatory.

[BrainGlutton]

Much obliged if you could post that in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=597222) where it belongs, thankee-sai.

Sorry, that must have sounded snarky; I meant only that Tamerlane's contribution to the other thread would be valuable.

[ñañi]

While I don’t remember seeing anyone claim that the Muslim Brotherhood specifically cannot be trusted because they are practicing “taqiyya,” I have seen how certain sectors of American society have recently applied the term “taqiyya” to the perceived inclination of Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about distasteful beliefs/practices in Islam as some kind of divinely mandated PR strategy.

Needless to say, this is a twisted viewing of what taqiyya actually is, and the implications of this view lead quite clearly to unnecessary anti-Islamic prejudice. However, while the view of taqiyya the OP counters with is far closer to the truth, I also find it lacking, so I’m going to give a brief overview of this fascinating concept.

The first point I want to make is that when it comes to Shia (specifically, Imami or Twelver Shi’ism, the kind that I’ll be spending the most attention on and the kind that is the dominant faith of Iran) Islam, taqiyya is not just a name for not drawing attention to yourself as a Shia when big men with swords are about. In fact, both non-Shia Muslim and Western scholars have traditionally seen taqiyya as an essential element of Imami Shi’ism, practiced and encouraged by Imami leaders throughout the ages. Examining the Imami tradition’s views makes this idea much more complicated, but the main point is this: taqiyya has been instrumental in the development and preservation of Imami Shi’ism.

Before looking at what exactly this concept that I’ve declared so big and important means, we should think about the historical context that gave it life. The first mentions of taqiyya in Imami literature come from the Imamates of Muhammad al-Baqir (the 5th one) and his son Jafar al-Sadiq (the 6th one) in the middle of the eighth century, or a century plus after the death of Muhammad. This was a tumultuous time in Islamic history; the transition from the Umayyad to Abbasid caliphate, and the beginning of the formation of Imami Shi’ism as a distinct sect within the party of Ali, were happening. Previous to this, the Shia had fought for their claims, and the martyrs of that era are still revered, despite the Wikipedia article’s snobbish insinuations that only Sunnis admire people willing to die for their beliefs. The activist phase ended after the slaughter at Karbala, and the Imami found themselves in a painful situation. Unlike certain other religious minority groups, such as Sunnis in Spain after the Reconquista, they were right in the middle of the oppressive empire and they clearly did not see emigration as a viable option for their community. Staying alive was the only thing that could be done to ensure the survival of the community.

Understanding the tremendous persecution of the Shia is essential to understanding taqiyya and in general the Shia mindset. The Imami elaborated taqiyya in response to their persecution, and justified it with some verses from the Qur’an. So, ok, the Shia concealed their religion from people who might oppress them, at times even to the point of lying about what they believed in or acting like Sunnis in order to avoid harm. But this simple concept quickly took on an almost unbelievably central place in Shia thought. Imam Sadiq, alluding to Quran 49:13, said, “He is most excellent in performing his religious duties in the eyes of God who is best at observing taqiyya.” He compared the situation of the Shia to bees among birds: If the birds realized the bees had sweet honey inside them, they would eat the bees out of envy.

The obsession with secretism was a big part of Imami Shi’ism, with one medieval Shia scholar writing that God imposed Shi’ism in secret and will not allow believers to publicly acknowledge their faith, to the point where the guardian of paradise (the angel Ridwan) will not even notice the Shia entering heaven until the day of Resurrection. You don’t just get the sense that people had to hide distinctive marks in public, key doctrines and hadiths also had to be hidden lest they arose ire from the community. An example of this is the Imami doctrine of “raja” that asserted that some would resurrect before the “main event” Resurrection. Opponents like the medieval Mutazilite (a later discredited theological party) al-Khayyat observed that holding this doctrine was, for the bulk of Muslims, like committing apostasy and so it was kept secret by the Shia.

Here you can see the seeds of “lying to the Sunni dogs” that Sunnis felt was going on.

So you had a bunch of Imami Shia who were persecuted. And they decided to not fight or leave, so the only hope was this concept of taqiyya. What did it actually involve? As a technical term, we can understand taqiyya to mean “precautionary dissimulation.” It involved both concealment in a passive way (kitman) and actually dissembling. The outward expression of this has already been covered, but there was also inward taqiyya, which was just as important.

The first type of inward taqiyya was concealing texts, beliefs, and information on the Imams from other Shia. You get this interesting rebuke from Imam Sadiq: Whoever propagates our traditions is like someone who denies it.” The reason for this is simple. If you tell everyone about the secrets, (and in Imami thought, the Imams possessed special knowledge) then it could get back to the leaders andthat’s bad. The Imams were somewhat untrustworthy of their followers’ ability to keep a secret. When Imams would provide contradictory answers to the same questions, that was also a form of taqiyya, the one inconsistent with the Sunni position was seen as the true version.

The second kind of inward taqiyya was more reminiscent of the Gnostics. Shi’ism was really concerned with keeping secrets from the uninitiated. There was a very strong distinction between the elite and the masses. Imam Sadiq claimed that God gave the Imams knowledge not even the angels or prophets could bear. Part of this secret knowledge could be revealed to Shi’is but part of it would have to wait, possible until the coming of the Messiah. So there is that. Especially on controversial issues, it is hard to note when taqiyya is being practiced to protect the community from harm, or out of this notion of keeping special knowledge. There was a clear hierarchy of knowledge and revealing esoteric Shia doctrines to those who were not ready for them was bad. This helps to explain the Imam’s statements on taqiyya like “he who has no taqiyya has no faith” even though the concept of taqiyya as protecting yourself from outside influences was clearly seen as a temporary and non-universal state of affairs that would eventually end. Though circumstances at times dictated when taqiyya was an obligation, Imam al-Bariq noted that it was always, in the end, the choice of the believer when and how to exercise it.

As you can imagine, taqiyya really annoyed the Sunni. Not so much because it allowed the Shi’a to keep on living (though they did call out that aspect of it as cowardly) but because they saw it as a Shia strategy to explain away history that seemed to disprove Shia doctrine. Sunni scholars felt like, whenever they would say something like, “Ali recognized the rule of the other Caliphs! If he was deprived of his rights, why didn’t he fight?” Shia would just say “oh, Ali was practicing taqiyya.” Now, Shia don’t actually say that Ali practiced taqiyya per se, but they did claim a number of famous Sunni as being Shia who were practicing taqiyya. Because taqiyya became used as a way to justify the superiority of Shi’ism, it fell under extreme criticism from the Sunni. I’ve met Sunnis from Iraq who will still complain about Shia using taqiyya in pretty derogatory language.

So the Shia, especially after the occlusion of the 12th Imam (which was termed an act of taqiyya) were not happy to hear this criticism, and they were eager to expound on the righteousness of their beliefs whenever they could, which did start to become a bigger area over time. So you do get much more of the notion in medieval Imami thought that suffering for your faith is more virtuous than concealing it, and that taqiyya is more properly thought of as a dispensation rather than an obligation. It was a mercy given by God to his weak believers. So rules started to develop about when it was OK to use taqiyya, and when you had to stand your ground. These rules generally depended on the situation on the ground. A great source is al-Shaykh al-Mufid, a Persian scholar. He wrote that taqiyya is only meant to be done when you are reasonably sure that not doing it will result in harm to the true religion or its believers.

People were eager to spread their beliefs because if you constantly live a secret life, eventually you have a hard time telling what is true and what is not. This is a big problem for the Shia. If their followers live every day like Sunni, will they become Sunni? And how can you teach others if you don't spread your faith? This was a force against taqiyya within the Shia tradition.

More contemporary scholars like al-Ghita did try to minimize it a lot, emphasizing the reasonableness of not dying for a religious point. He asked his Sunni readers, “don’t make the practice of taqiyya necessary then criticize us for doing it.” But again, he is writing for a Sunni audience, and that would play a role in how he wrote. There is no discussion of the keeping of secret knowledge, for example.

So now we have the issue that confronts us, oddly enough, with the Muslim Brotherhood in this thread, which is, when a Shia scholar makes a pronouncement on taqiyya, or indeed, any other sensitive topic, how do we know it’s not taqiyya? After all, many Shia will explain offsetting statements of historical figures by saying they used taqiyya themselves, so it’s clearly something that happens. In this situation, what we just have to do is look at the audience of the statement, the conditions it was written in, and previous literature. This is why we can trust al-Mufid more than another scholar who was writing in a state of oppression.

If we promote an environment where someone feels secure they are more likely to succumb to the impulse of proclaiming their faith then hiding it as some kind of long-term ploy. Thankfully, I have never heard of America being called "dar al-taqiyya." (a place where taqiyya is required, no largely defunct term)

Taqiyya as a protection measure is much less important now than it used to be, because now there are actual Shi’a states. You don’t see Ahmadinejad or Hezbollah saying that they are Sunnis, right. Interestingly, in Iran, where taqiyya is a social institution, you are far more likely to find it, in practice if not in name, among the Jews, Christians, and especially Baha’I who suffer persecution there. If you look at the book of Esther in the Bible, you can see that the practice of taqiyya, in certain forms, stretch back to far beyond the Islamic days of Iran. Where there is no persecution, the need for taqiyya dries up, and that’s seen as a good thing. If you see Saudi Arabia go nuclear and then Iran start calling itself a Sunni country, that’s taqiyya. The idea that taqiyya is not a temporary state, or that it is a requirement of all muslims, or even all Shia, fails when you see taqiyya being abandoned as freedom grows.

I reiterate the idea that we can get a good judge of what the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood thinks by examining their historical statements and literature, and that if they are lying at this moment, it is not out of their conscious adherence to the Shia doctrine of taqiyya. There are plenty of ways to justify whatever they do within the confines of Sunni Islam. They don't need to go looking for help from the Shia.

To the extent that taqiyya is relevant in world events today, I would say it is more about it being meaningful as a theological and cultural concept dealing doctrinal issues, minorities, and spiritual hierarchies, rather than practical political strategy. The last true instance of protection taqiyya I'm aware of deals with the Ismaili Shia in Afghanistan, who have long been persecuted for supposedly being too promiscuous. I do know Shia have trouble in a variety of other nations, though, I can't say for sure.

I guess you could say that if there was a Shia (Or Sunni, if you want) cleric who made a habit of saying in Britain moderate things in order to keep his Visa and then back home in a different country saying much more extreme things, then you could define it as taqiyya. This, I think, is what some opponents of Islam get angry about. But this is not really taqiyya as the term is historically conceived of. There is no threat of death, among other things. It's more useful to just call it lying.


Oh, man, I wrote a lot. Does it even make any sense? Did anyone read it? If not, here’s my TLDR version for now:

Taqiyya is a Shia concept that was born out of intense persecution. It is very Imami and very Persian, and many Sunni scholars spent a lot of time attacking it, so it’s unlikely that they would adopt it. It not only involves concealing or dissimulating about your beliefs in order to protect the community, but also keeping secret knowledge from the unready, untrustworthy, or uninitiated. It holds a central place in Shia history, but its practical applications are today limited by the increasing power of many Shia communities. It’s about core beliefs, practices, and doctrines, not politics. The actions of the Muslim Brotherhood, who are not Shia in Egypt, don’t have anything to do with taqiyya as a doctrinal concept. That said, while the secret knowledge part is more particular to Shi'ism, the behavioral parts of taqiyya are relatively unremarkable and can be justified in a huge variety of religious traditions who use their own terminology. It's best we just judge motivations of modern groups using all available evidence.

I hope that some of the knowledgeable dopers we have here will offer their comments and critique, since I have no doubt I made some errors. I'm sorry to just lay a huge essay on you all. I hope I’ve informed as much as I’ve amused and frustrated.

Sources:

Etan Kohlberg, Some Imami Views on Taqiyya
Etan Kohlberg, Taqiyya in Shia Theology and Religion
Cyrus Gordon, The Substratum of Taqiyya in Iran

[Gorsnak]

....so I’m going to give a brief overview of this fascinating concept. [emphasis added]

I take it that this statement is an example of taqiyya? :p

Actually I read the whole thing. Quite fascinating, especially the bits about inward taqiyya. Thanks.

[Ibn Warraq]

Nani,

thank you, that was a terrific post.

[BrainGlutton]

I had no idea Shi'a Islam included such mystery-religion aspects.

[The Flying Dutchman]

No, I'm afraid Muslims know very little about tequila.

Just goes to show how little you know. Thirty-four per cent of Mexicans are secret muslims with the agenda to spread Sharia through illegal immigration into the US.

Canada is the last bastion of white christian supremacy.

[Abe]

I had no idea Shi'a Islam included such mystery-religion aspects.

It's generally rife with this kind of stuff, but that varies quite a bit by sect, of course.

Leaving aside the inapplicability of a Shi'a concept to Sunni Muslims, I'd like to confirm that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is indeed a moderate organization as strange (and ulcer-inducing, to a certain one or two) as it may sound. The MB has softened a fair bit over the years, becoming virtually the only opposition voice in Egyptian politics and thus attracting all sorts of members (not just rabid Islamists) who had very few other options if they wanted to have any form of political expression.

The MB is playing a very clever game at the moment. It knows that it has little chance of taking power, lacking both a charismatic leader and meaningful support among the largely secular and youthful protest movement (not to mention zero support among the secular military), so it is positioning itself quite shrewdly for a long game: portraying itself as equitable, willing to share, and even putting its raison d'etre on the backburner.

Personally I despise and mistrust any theocratic political agenda, and many factors in Egypt worry me considerably. Not just the Muslim Brotherhood, who at least can be said to be moderately educated and savvy, but more so the radicalization of the population following decades of poverty, repression, and the funnelling of political activism into a religious forum.

[FinnAgain]

t the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is indeed a moderate organization

Which of the following three beliefs is a moderate position, and why:

-Killing people who commit adultery
-Killing people who exercise freedom of religion and leave Islam
-"punishing" gays for being gay

[Abe]

Which of the following three beliefs is a moderate position, and why:

-Killing people who commit adultery
-Killing people who exercise freedom of religion and leave Islam
-"punishing" gays for being gay

Never said these were moderate positions, or that the Brotherhood's agenda is moderate - they want a theocratic government, for crying out loud! That's not moderate by any definition.

The point is that the composition of the BM (in spite of some sharp angles) is not as radical as you paint it. No question, there are rabid Islamists and fanatics in the party, but the entire party is very varied and on average highly educated.

Those who disagreed with Mubarek's regime really only had one choice if they wanted to be in politics: the Muslim Brotherhood. The only forum Mubarek could not shut down was the mosque, and as a result the only real party that was tolerated was the Brotherhood. This led to its ranks becoming swelled with people who do not necessarily agree with radical Islamist ideology, and that's part of why the Brotherhood is more moderate than you'd expect at first glance.

[FinnAgain]

Your argument is specious. You admit that the MB's positions are not moderate, and that their agenda is not moderate. But you claim they are moderate, anyways. And you attempt to claim that the issue is whether or not to paint their membership as radical.

It's not.

An organization that wants to murder apostates and adulterers, and persecute gays, as their organization's official position, is not moderate. No, not even if you suggest that your position gives people ulcers.

[BrainGlutton]

Your argument is specious. You admit that the MB's positions are not moderate, and that their agenda is not moderate. But you claim they are moderate, anyways. And you attempt to claim that the issue is whether or not to paint their membership as radical.

It's not.

An organization that wants to murder apostates and adulterers, and persecute gays, as their organization's official position, is not moderate. No, not even if you suggest that your position gives people ulcers.

The point is not that the MB is radical or moderate, the point is that it's a complicated question and the points you make do not simplify it. MB was the only sometimes-nearly-tolerated opposition organization in Egypt for the past couple of decades, so it attracted everyone dissatisfied. There are ideological and generational divisions within it. al-Qaeda definitely considers MB a sellout of the jihad. Fascinating article from The Nation: "The Muslim Brotherhood in Transition." (http://www.thenation.com/article/158716/muslim-brotherhood-transition)

The Muslim Brotherhood, the Cairo-based Islamist group that consumes the minds of American neoconservatives but rates hardly a second thought in Egypt, is in many ways like an ancient papyrus roll displayed in an airtight case lest it crumble when exposed to the elements.

The oxygen and light now leavening Egyptian politics is apparently doing just that. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that the Muslim Brotherhood’s youth branch was appealing to group elders for “an affiliated political party based on the values of the Muslim Brotherhood but not strictly religious.” Forming such a group, one youth leader told the FT, “would prove that we are peaceful, want to work in an institutional framework and are seeking to reform society in all its aspects.”

The fragmentation of Egypt’s largest and most influential Islamist movement should surprise no one who has spent time listening to its members. Far from being a monolith, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Ikhwan, as it is known in Arabic, is well scored by demographic and ideological fault lines. Its diversified ranks—young and old, blue-collar and bourgeoisie, worldly and parochial—shared above all else a hatred of the despot who tormented it. Assuming Egypt will reap the bounty of its democratic revolution—and there are indications that the military authority that now controls the nation may obstruct such a harvest—the elimination of Hosni Mubarak could mean the end of the Ikhwan as we know it.

<snip>

Ahmed Salah is a young dissident and secularist who has spent years in Egypt’s political opposition. (In the revolution’s formative hours in Tahrir Square, he was arrested by security agents, beaten and released back into the crowd, only to take a rubber bullet it the head three days later.) On Thursday, he told me by phone that the Muslim Brotherhood had been a marginal player in the upheaval except for its young leaders, who were exploiting a leadership vacuum for the sake of aggrandizing power. The real menace to the revolution, he said, was the military council that has installed itself as a provisional government. Rather than convening talks with a wide array of opposition leaders, Salah told me, it is soft-stalling secularists’ demand for constitutional reform while “negotiating” with an inchoate opposition that includes members of the Ikhwan’s youth branch. (The Financial Times seemed to corroborate Salah’s account, reporting in its Wednesday edition that some thirty human rights groups have criticized the military for excluding secular groups from the constitutional reform panel, which they said was dominated “either by Islamists or legal experts who had helped draw up laws that restricted democracy under Hosni Mubarak.”)

The implication is that Brotherhood upstarts will barter away the soul of the revolution in return for a slice of power in the new regime, in which the generals preserve de facto, if not de jure, control of the country. Such a deal would be similar to the one their fathers kept with Mubarak—accommodation for the sake of autonomy, suggesting what may be a cross-generational fear of having to compete with secularists in a free marketplace of ideas.

[FinnAgain]

The point is not that the MB is radical or moderate, the point is that it's a complicated question and the points you make do not simplify it.

Oh, you mean simplify it like claiming that they're less extreme than the American religious right, and then never retracting that error no matter what?
But, no, of course the fact that the MB's own official position is violent and non-moderate goes to whether or not the organization is a moderate organization. The fact that their official position is to murder apostates and adulterers, and to persecute gays, shows that they are not a moderate organization.

Handwaving about their membership is obfuscatory when the issue is their positions and their agenda. Handwaving about their membership while babbling about "neocons" is a further absurdity, when the issue is their positions and their agenda. At the stage where you have to point to Al Quaeda to provide contrast, you've pretty much conceded the facts.

That some of the MB's members do not agree with the group's agenda does not make it a moderate organizations. The positions it espouses and the agenda it holds determines whether or not it holds moderate positions and espouses a moderate agenda. Now, if you'd like to adopt an intellectually honest position, you can say that the MB is currently an extremist organization (just less extreme than Al Quaeda), and they want to murder people based on religious laws, but there's a schism within their organization that might see them reformed at some point. Or that, should the schismatics leave, then the splinter group will be moderate and the MB will remain extremists. Fair play. But pointing out that they might, at some point, be reformed or have a moderate offshoot is hardly germane to the subject of whether they are, right now, moderate or not.

[BrainGlutton]

Oh, you mean simplify it like claiming that they're less extreme than the American religious right, and then never retracting that error no matter what?

No, I said the MB is "less violent, less bigoted and less ignorant" than the American RR, of which I remain convinced, based on their actions, not their doctrine.

[FinnAgain]

Oh, of course, less violent, bigoted and ignorant isn't the same thing as being more moderate at all.

And of course you remain convinced. The MB wants to execute people who leave Islam and who fool around while married, and they want to persecute gays. All that is obviously much less violent or bigoted, (and much more enlightened and knowledgeable) than the dreaded American religious right.

[BrainGlutton]

Oh, of course, less violent, bigoted and ignorant isn't the same thing as being more moderate at all.

And of course you remain convinced. The MB wants to execute people who leave Islam and who fool around while married, and they want to persecute gays. All that is obviously much less violent or bigoted, (and much more enlightened and knowledgeable) than the dreaded American religious right.

Is "based on their actions, not their doctrine" too complicated a concept for you to understand?

[FinnAgain]

No, I recognize the intellectual dishonesty and obvious nonsense that you're using to avoid admitting you were wrong. It's cute, though, that you think I can't object to your bullshit argument without a failure to understand it.

One group has, as its official policy, the murder of apostates and adulterers, and the persecution of gay people. You deliberately choose to avoid that and pretend that a group calling for the deaths of people and the official persecution of gays is less "violent" and "bigoted" than one that doesn't.

[Ibn Warraq]

Is "based on their actions, not their doctrine" too complicated a concept for you to understand?

This is the same Muslim Brotherhood which endorsed suicide bombing(which they call "martyrdom operations") directed at Bat Mitzvah's, commuter buses and pizzerias.

This is the same Muslim Brotherhood which proudly lists the fact that Hamas is one of their offshoots.

Here is Yusuf Al Qaradawi who is generally considered to be one of the more moderate spiritual leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood giving his opinion about Hitler and "the Jews."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HStliOnVl6Q

Now, since you have insisted that the religious right in America is "more bigoted" and feel that the Muslim Brotherhood is no different than the Christian Democratic parties in Europe, please give me the names of major figures of the Religious Right who's influence and popularity is comparable to that of Qaradawi who praise Hitler and claim that their greatest wish is to kill Jews.

Similarly, if the Muslim Brotherhood really is comparable to the Christian Democrats of Europe, please list some Christian Democrats who've made such comments.

[Ibn Warraq]

The point is that the composition of the BM (in spite of some sharp angles) is not as radical as you paint it. No question, there are rabid Islamists and fanatics in the party, but the entire party is very varied and on average highly educated.

You're using the fact that so many of their members are "highly educated" as if Muslims who are highly educated are less likely to be radical than their poorer, less educated counterparts.

That's not true at all. In Egypt, radical Islam, ever since the days of Qutb has always drawn it's leaders from the well-educated upper class and middle class. Most of the leaders of Sunni radical groups didn't train to be clerics, but were instead trained to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, or some similar profession and wound up becoming radicalized. Most even studied in the West.

For example, Qutb, who made the MB into a force to be reckoned with was an engineer who went to college in Colorado and became radicalized at that time. Hamas at times has been led by pediatricians and meetings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have rarely been attended by semi-literate common laborers, but by college-educated professionals. Ahmadinejad actually has a PhD.

The rural and urban poor of the Arab Middle East aren't the ones who've flocked to radical Islam, but it's usually the frustrated, well-educated middle class.

In fact, a study amongst the Palestinians found that illiterate Palestinians were more likely to oppose suicide bombings than college-educated Palestinians. Similarly, students at Bir Zeit University tend to be far more radical than those Palestinians who work as day laborers.

There's a reason the 9/11 hijackers were all engineers and architects who spoke multiple languages rather than semi-literate farmers.

[Ibn Warraq]

That said, I doubt the Muslim Brotherhood will take over, but to try and make them into something they're not is utterly silly.

[Abe]

There's a reason the 9/11 hijackers were all engineers and architects who spoke multiple languages rather than semi-literate farmers.

There are a number of reasons, which make your implied conclusion either wrong or not relevant to my point.

Most important among these "9/11 reasons" is the fact that you want someone capable of operating in a foreign environment, with the intellectual power to execute a complex plan, and who is a quick study on technical matters, e.g., like flying a plane or demolishing a building. Things an illiterate fisherman might struggle with, regardless of the fervour of his religious and political ideology.

But of course that has nothing specifically to do with the Brotherhood. I already pointed out the problem of repressive regimes routing political discourse into religious forums, something that never works well. What we see in the case of the Brotherhood, however, certainly looks like a softening in stance.

Rabid fundamentalists generally do not issue public assurances that (if they were to take power) women would not need to cover up. Radical Islamists and jihadists virulently condemn the Brotherhood for being moderate and for not pursuing extremist goals. The (secular) military somehow saw fit to appoint a Brotherhood member to the constitutional panel charged with revising the Egyptian constitution and pave the way for a new government: Sobhi Saleh. He's a well respected moderate and a member of the reformist camp in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes, there are reformists in the party. It's not all dire news.

You're using the fact that so many of their members are "highly educated" as if Muslims who are highly educated are less likely to be radical than their poorer, less educated counterparts.

I was trying to allay popular fears of unwashed illiterate tribal masses calling for Jihad. My bad. There's so many factors at work here that I doubt the matter can be settled easily. One has to be reasonably educated to get ahead in Egyptian society, whether as a civil servant or politician or cleric, and that does cause overlap between the groups of people who are well educated and extremist exponents.

There's also the issue of technology, not easily available outside of urban areas, as well as "loci of opportunity" typically found in urban areas which do not so much attract extremists as create them.

Would you suggest that well educated equals extremist? Or do you accept that there are well educated members of the MB who are not extremist (including several liberals funnelled into the only real opposition group by Mubarek's policies)?

Well educated young officers who imported skills and knowledge acquired in places like West Point were crucial to the Egyptian revolution we just witnessed. Better trained, the "youngsters" provided an absolutely crucial counter balance to the old guard, which was more traditionally educated to exercise power rather than strategically restrain it.

Something similar has been happening to the MB, which has significant internal pressure to reform. Not just because of the influx of liberals (who had nowhere else to go) in the party, but also because after more than 80 years of trying, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has managed to accomplish precious little by hardline. It commands maybe 20% of popular support and has perhaps 100,000 members. The management is starting to understand that their agenda may be less than ideal. Does that make them a desirable political element? Of course not, their policies remain problematic at best. But let's not make things look worse than they are.

A lot of things are unclear and I don't presume to be able to account for all of them. We see popular statistics flung around like 84% of Egyptians support stoning as punishment for adultery, and I fear that the BM may have seized on them. That would explain the vague USA Today quote provided by FinnAgain of Ali Abdel Fattah who was reported as saying that "The Brotherhood would seek "the preservation of honor" by stoning adulterers, punishing gays, requiring Muslim women to cover their heads and shoulders in public and killing Muslims who leave their faith".

Aside from the fact that the BM has already specified that it would not push such policies, Ali Abdel fattah might be pandering to polls in a misguided attempt to gain more popular support, since even Islamic authorities have a hard time agreeing on exactly what is supposedly mandated by the Koran and Sharia and there is disagreement within the party itself as to what is reasonable and what is not. The above quote is a rather hardline interpretation of the worst fundametalist Islamist issues. Such extremist positions would be contested within the MB itself, unless all its moderates, reformists, and liberals magically disappeared (mind you that may happen if Egypt will achieve a free and open political forum, which would only further weaken the MB). There's very litle chance that seculars in Egyptian society (not to mention the military) would allow such draconic religious policies to become reality anyway.

[Ibn Warraq]

There are a number of reasons, which make your implied conclusion either wrong or not relevant to my point.

Most important among these "9/11 reasons" is the fact that you want someone capable of operating in a foreign environment, with the intellectual power to execute a complex plan, and who is a quick study on technical matters, e.g., like flying a plane or demolishing a building. Things an illiterate fisherman might struggle with, regardless of the fervour of his religious and political ideology.

But of course that has nothing specifically to do with the Brotherhood. I already pointed out the problem of repressive regimes routing political discourse into religious forums, something that never works well. What we see in the case of the Brotherhood, however, certainly looks like a softening in stance.

Rabid fundamentalists generally do not issue public assurances that (if they were to take power) women would not need to cover up. Radical Islamists and jihadists virulently condemn the Brotherhood for being moderate and for not pursuing extremist goals. The (secular) military somehow saw fit to appoint a Brotherhood member to the constitutional panel charged with revising the Egyptian constitution and pave the way for a new government: Sobhi Saleh. He's a well respected moderate and a member of the reformist camp in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes, there are reformists in the party. It's not all dire news.



I was trying to allay popular fears of unwashed illiterate tribal masses calling for Jihad. My bad. There's so many factors at work here that I doubt the matter can be settled easily. One has to be reasonably educated to get ahead in Egyptian society, whether as a civil servant or politician or cleric, and that does cause overlap between the groups of people who are well educated and extremist exponents.

There's also the issue of technology, not easily available outside of urban areas, as well as "loci of opportunity" typically found in urban areas which do not so much attract extremists as create them.

Would you suggest that well educated equals extremist? Or do you accept that there are well educated members of the MB who are not extremist (including several liberals funnelled into the only real opposition group by Mubarek's policies)?

Well educated young officers who imported skills and knowledge acquired in places like West Point were crucial to the Egyptian revolution we just witnessed. Better trained, the "youngsters" provided an absolutely crucial counter balance to the old guard, which was more traditionally educated to exercise power rather than strategically restrain it.

Something similar has been happening to the MB, which has significant internal pressure to reform. Not just because of the influx of liberals (who had nowhere else to go) in the party, but also because after more than 80 years of trying, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has managed to accomplish precious little by hardline. It commands maybe 20% of popular support and has perhaps 100,000 members. The management is starting to understand that their agenda may be less than ideal. Does that make them a desirable political element? Of course not, their policies remain problematic at best. But let's not make things look worse than they are.

A lot of things are unclear and I don't presume to be able to account for all of them. We see popular statistics flung around like 84% of Egyptians support stoning as punishment for adultery, and I fear that the BM may have seized on them. That would explain the vague USA Today quote provided by FinnAgain of Ali Abdel Fattah who was reported as saying that "The Brotherhood would seek "the preservation of honor" by stoning adulterers, punishing gays, requiring Muslim women to cover their heads and shoulders in public and killing Muslims who leave their faith".

Aside from the fact that the BM has already specified that it would not push such policies, Ali Abdel fattah might be pandering to polls in a misguided attempt to gain more popular support, since even Islamic authorities have a hard time agreeing on exactly what is supposedly mandated by the Koran and Sharia and there is disagreement within the party itself as to what is reasonable and what is not. The above quote is a rather hardline interpretation of the worst fundametalist Islamist issues. Such extremist positions would be contested within the MB itself, unless all its moderates, reformists, and liberals magically disappeared (mind you that may happen if Egypt will achieve a free and open political forum, which would only further weaken the MB). There's very litle chance that seculars in Egyptian society (not to mention the military) would allow such draconic religious policies to become reality anyway.

I'm a bit surprised by your assumption that the Muslim Brotherhood wouldn't try and have apostates punished when they very specifically pushed the Mubarak government to have the word "Ex-Muslim" stamped on the IDs of Muslims who converted to Christianity.

Also, I'm not sure you understand what the "secular" military thinks since they have also advocated for all sorts of morality laws and religious education.

Finally, since you're so certain that the Muslim Brotherhood has "reformers" and "liberals" within it, though you decline to name any of them, let's take a look at the most prominent "moderate" and "liberal" within the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here he is on Hitler and what should be done with "the Jews".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HStliOnVl6Q

Here he is on female masturbation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPXmNXLbuxY&feature=related

Here is his legal opinion on apostates.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1178724001992&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout

Would you suggest that well educated equals extremist?

Um... no. I'm simply making the point that anyone familiar with the genesis and spread of radical Islam knows that it's been far more prevalent among the well-educated than the poorly educated and not for the reasons you're suggesting.

I'd recommend read Gille Kepel The Prophet and the Pharaoh for an in-depth look at it's genesis and growth in Egypt.

You're trying to make the Muslim Brotherhood into something they're not because you find it comforting. I see where you're coming from, but if you want to really understand what it going on, you'll need to jettison the comfortable beliefs and scratch below the surface.

All of this discussion though ignores the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has little chance of taking over.

[Abe]

I'm a bit surprised by your assumption that the Muslim Brotherhood wouldn't try and have apostates punished when they very specifically pushed the Mubarak government to have the word "Ex-Muslim" stamped on the IDs of Muslims who converted to Christianity.

I'm a bit surprised at some of your assumptions. Motes and beams! Let's take a closer, rather more accurate look, shall we? The quote in question, provided by a rather vague article that gave no deeper information, consisted of one spokesman allegedly saying (not even by direct quote) that the MB would pursue the following:

"the preservation of honor" by stoning adulterers, punishing gays, requiring Muslim women to cover their heads and shoulders in public and killing Muslims who leave their faith

People have (predictably) had a field day with that quote while completely ignoring other (more moderate) output from the MB, which prompted me to say this: "the BM has already specified that it would not push such policies" (to which you expressed your surprise).

The reason I pointed this out was to counter the fixation on small tidbits of information that often (and sadly) characterizes discussion on these topics, where posters try to score points against each other while regaling the audience with the rugged assertiveness of their prose. How about you try a slightly wider angle?

Here is one Muslim Brotherhood proclamation that some may find surprisingly mild:

http://www.islamonline.net/cs/ContentServer?packedargs=locale%3Den&c=IOLArticle_C&childpagename=IslamOnline%2FIslamOnlineLayout&p=News&pagename=IslamOnlineWrapper&cid=1278407478927

As for the Brotherhood’s political movement over the coming period, we ensure that we will not nominate any of our members for presidency; in fact, I ensure that we will not strive for majority in parliament, but we are betting on our ability to establish a broader alliance…

This is our strategy for several reasons:

First: so that we will not frighten anyone from inside or outside. Secondly: because this country was destroyed by the previous regime, so why should it be upon us only to rebuild it?

This is not our task alone; it is the task of all Egyptians. The Muslim Brotherhood is a special case; because we do not seek power through violence or military means, such as other organizations that may be violent, we are a peaceful organizing acting in accordance to the constitution and law.

But at the same time, we emphasize on the right of the Brotherhood in forming a political party, and this decision has been taken by the Shura Council twenty years ago.

Part of the Western fears, the American in particular, from your arrival at the helm, is your position on international treaties, specifically Camp David…as is the fear of Islamists in general.

Firstly, in regards to the position of the Muslim Brotherhood towards the peace treaty established with Israel, we have repeatedly affirmed that Egypt is a big country, and it has institutions and a Parliament…

Therefore, the Parliament is the only body authorized to consider such treaties, but only after the parliament is elected by the people and has the right to form and drop the government. In this case, it will determine the foreign agreements and treaties, which will be in accordance with the political will.

As for their fear of the Islamists coming to power, this fear was proved wrong over the course of events; a speech to be rejected, especially that Islam believes in freedom of belief, no one wants to impose their beliefs on anyone…

We have reiterated that we, as the Muslim Brotherhood, are against the religious state that has raised Western fears, because Islam is against it. We are for the civil state with an Islamic authority.

Sounds fairly moderate, no?

I would also like to note that you are making a gigantic leap from identification of ex Muslims to automatic punishment of apostates. Joke: the USA requires you to declare your ethnicity! OMFG! Racist murderers want to identify and kill us!

I've already mentioned how even within Egyptian religious forums (never mind the larger Islamic world) there is no ultimate consensus on apostasy or what the punishment for apostasy should be. People disagree freely on this subject, and as there is no Koranic basis for apostasy laws, they are likely to continue to disagree.

Said that, apostasy in cultures where Islam is dominant tends to be a big deal and has been a huge source of discussion. Consider contraception and abortion in Catholic cultures and the responses such topics elicit. It is simply not reasonable to expect parity across cultures on all issues. Many consider original sin to be a ridiculous concept and a psychologically harmful handicap, and yet it's one of the pillars of many Christian sects and an accepted item of culture across various countries.

I will agree with you and everyone else that the idea that there is such a thing as apostate sin is philosophically and morally vile and needs to be wiped out in any society. But that is neither the point nor a fair cultural consideration for countries where apostasy has been identified in certain ways for over a thousand years.

Are Muslims who genuinely believe that apostasy is bad supposed to magically come to their senses? That's going to take time and education. And maybe an Enlightment, which the Muslim world could really use right about now.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, apostasy will remain a popular topic. But it is rather unfair and hardly worthy of Great Debates to repeatedly attempt to exclude other dialogue that provides a more nuanced picture than the facile conclusion you are trying to hammer through.

Also, I'm not sure you understand what the "secular" military thinks since they have also advocated for all sorts of morality laws and religious education.

Gee. Perhaps I understand just fine and realize that there are degrees of difference for concepts and labels that vary according to different cultures? Take a European conservative and he looks like a centrist or even a liberal in US politics. I would certainly expect that secularism in environments where irreligion is virtually non-existent would hardly be identical to secularism in environments where irreligion is a normal part of life.

Finally, since you're so certain that the Muslim Brotherhood has "reformers" and "liberals" within it, though you decline to name any of them,

Gee, I am deeply sorry for “declining” to name people like Sobhi Saleh, the guy I already talked about in the very post you are responding to.

Yes, this is the same guy who once proposed banning public kissing in certain places. I agree that may not sound terribly moderate, but then again that’s an assessment informed by our own standards and cultures, and I don’t actually know details of that particular effort beyond the “e-z quote” I just gave. He is not likely to exactly match the Western concept of a liberal reformist, but that is hardly a surprise since we’re not talking about a Western society.

As far as reformers there was a whole group of them - the Islahiyoun party-within-the-party – though I am not sure what they are up to since the revolution.


let's take a look at the most prominent "moderate" and "liberal" within the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here he is on Hitler and what should be done with "the Jews".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HStliOnVl6Q

Here he is on female masturbation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPXmNXLbuxY&feature=related

Here is his legal opinion on apostates.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1178724001992&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout


That is nice cherry-picking. Don’t you think a more even-handed analysis (showing a man who has also issued “sensible” and compassionate rulings) would have been more fair?

For example, pronouncements about Jews from before he became senile and politically enraged by Israeli policies? I know he has frequently advocated dialogue, friendship, and non-violence especially towards Jews.

Please tell me exactly what is NOT moderate about his views on female masturbation. What I am getting is this:

- Female masturbation is "riskier" than male masturbation because insertion of fingers or objects could damage the rather delicate hymen
- Damage to the hymen would automatically be assumed to have resulted from fornication
- This would result in discrimination, injury, or even death to the female as a result of wrong-headed behaviour by men, relatives, or society.

If anything, that looks quite progressive to me (given the source). I'd say this is a fairly moderate view about female masturbation. What do you think?

But anyway. We know that the MB has a conservative leadership core which emphasizes conservative values - this is precisely the problem of the old guard and the new I already raised in the previous post. You see the old guard and assume that’s all there is – this is a mistake. (A mistake on top of the other mistake of painting a target entirely monochrome, that is).

The MB in recent times has been surprisingly moderate, certainly by the standards of conservative society and Islamist movements. The reasons are many (a softening of stance, influence of non-extremists, attempt to achieve wider popular appeal, seeking international legitimacy, etc.) but the result is that here we have a supposedly extremist party declaring that they do NOT intend to pursue the very power for which the West fears it.

Trustworthy? Perhaps, perhaps not. But that does speak directly against the fear that this party, if it comes to power, will start killing homosexuals, fornicators, apostates, etc.

You're trying to make the Muslim Brotherhood into something they're not because you find it comforting. I see where you're coming from, but if you want to really understand what it going on, you'll need to jettison the comfortable beliefs and scratch below the surface.

Spare me the cheap psychoanalysis. The MB does make me uncomfortable, but the picture you attempt to present about it (a fanatical, fundamentalist, uncompromising party) is simply not accurate. Does the MB talk to various ideological bases? Sure. Do some of its reps appear to be confused over some issues? Yes. Is some of their dialogue moderate and some of it extreme? Absolutely. Do they sometimes serve different audiences? Yes.

I am simply pointing to a more nuanced picture than the foolish binary ones (plural) some people would like to see swallowed wholesale.

A nuanced picture such as that presented here, for instance:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576118493401195136.html

The U.S. attitude toward democracy in the Arab world has been cooled by the experience in the Gaza Strip, where Hamas won more than 40% of the vote. But some Mideast experts hold out the hope the Muslim Brotherhood could be an antidote to radical and violent Islamist movements.

"If the Muslim Brotherhood becomes part of the solution, it becomes much harder for the violent radicals," because it undermines the narrative of Arab grievance, said John L. Esposito of Georgetown University.

Imagine that. Or what about this, an outcome prognosticated by a Christian female professor who is part of the Trustees of the January 25 Revolution and NOT a member (now or at any time) of the MB:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12504820

Mrs Makram-Ebied believes that the Muslim Brotherhood can and should become a legal party if it "plays by the rules".

These are, she argues: "no Sharia law and real democratic elections, not just once, but again and again".

"This appears to be what they want and, in time, they should become something akin to the Christian Democrats in Europe."

A point that (I think) was raised by BrainGlutton, though perhaps somewhat too strongly. Nonetheless, we see that people who are actually in the know, in Egypt, and involved in these historical events are rather less terrified by the MB than you’d expect from a not-that-highly-relevant political party that some people keep trying to make into a raging bugbear.

All of this discussion though ignores the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has little chance of taking over.

That “ignored” fact has already been asserted by both of us three or four times, so it is hardly fair to continue presenting it as ignored.

[FinnAgain]

People have (predictably) had a field day with that quote while completely ignoring other (more moderate) output from the MB, which prompted me to say this: "the BM has already specified that it would not push such policies"

It's almost as if the MB has put out some propaganda to try to assuage the fears of Westerners who will fall for it, and even when they explicitly say that, yeah, they're actually going to do what they've claimed they wouldn't, people will still try to argue that they're not serious/it's not a good enough quote/it doesn't count and no backseez


Sounds fairly moderate, no?

Much like their 'moderate' objection to violence, except while supporting suicide bombings targeted at civilians. Some people also repeat the whole "The MB has renounced violence" canard, too.

Trustworthy? Perhaps, perhaps not. But that does speak directly against the fear that this party, if it comes to power, will start killing homosexuals, fornicators, apostates, etc.

Of course, because all we have is their official spokesman saying that they'll kill adulterers and apostates and "punish" homosexuals. And who listens to a party's official spokesperson when trying to find out the party's official position?