From: mmokhtar@attmail.com (Mazen Mokhtar)
Subject: Self defense Justice and Islamic government
Originator: mmdh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:52:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.232542.15307@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> deniz@mandolin.ctr.columbia.edu (Deniz Akkus) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.213252.12331@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mmokhtar@attmail.com (Mazen Mokhtar) writes:

>It is easy to govern on paper.  I too can claim that all the governments
>of the X group are corrupt and I can do a better job etc. etc.  The
>Muslim brotherhood needs to have at least *one* single test case where
>Islamic law has prevailed, people are happy and prospering and
>everything is in order.

  It has more than one example. The historical example is any of numerous
implementations of an upright Islamic state. The current example is the local
elections in Algeria. In each case, the Islamists were most successful at
improving the conditions in the areas which they governed.

  The Islamic form of government has achieved great successes in the past and
present. The corrupt never like to see their corruption checked. The Islamic
movements are bound to be oppressed and maligned until their successes and
their popularity imposes itself. The Islamists are the only voice of justice
in the Islamic world. Only they call for the freedom which God granted all
people. Only they call for a fair election process. Only they call for a
responsive government and only they were successful where they were elected.

  But I disagree that they need an example, or humanity would never progress.
All the Muslim brotherhood needs is the ability to improve people's lives,
not the history. The greatness of a people is not defined by their history,
but by their present achievements. In both areas the Brotherhood shines.

>A workable system, Islamic or not, needs to have checks and
>counter-checks.  Even a lot of so-called absolute monarchies have had
>this, in their best times.  It is when the system of check and
>counter-check goes awry that usually you end up with a corrupt government. 

  I strongly agree. I should note that the political program of the Muslim
Brotherhood strongly advocates the establishment of a system of checks and
counter-checks. In Egypt and Algeria they took their demands to court with
mixed success.

>As for my knowing how enemies will divide and conquer, indeed I do.  Why
>does Syria support Kurdish separatism in Turkey?  Are you aware of the
>recent news where members of the Syrian parliament resigned to protest
>such support?  I, growing up, did not hear any words against Kurds.  Now
>I do, as people begin to look at their neighbor and wonder about their
>allegiance.  

  The Syrian leadership is not the Muslim Brotherhood. The Syrian leadership
is the leadership that killed thousands in Hama.

>Why did the Hidv of Egypt separate from the Ottoman Empire? Nationalism,
>gift/curse of the west or not, is a reality and has been so in our part
>of the world for the past few centuries.  

  Turkey will not find in the Arab world support except from the Islamists,
they are the only ones who value Muslim unity.

>I would support military intervention by *non-interested* parties, as I
>believe the civil war might be beyond simple re-opening of communication
>channels.  I would hope that this would happen *only* to stop the blood
>shed so mediation can be accomplished. 

  What do you mean by non-interested. If your house is being burned, your
family is being killed and you have the choice to escape or fight, are
you interested or non-interested?

>  On the other hand, a shipment of arms is not going to bring back Bosnian
>children.

  But it will help Bosnians defend more children from being killed. It will
help them defend whatever land they have left. It will help them restore the
land which was stolen from them.

>  And what if Serbian children then get killed in retribution?  Is that OK?

  Of course not. Injustice is never OK, that is the principle of Islam.

>How do we keep that from happening?  How do you get a man who has lost loved
>ones to stop from demanding revenge?  Justice is not something
>that you should take into your hands.

  Into whose hands should I leave it? Who is better than a righteous man
to implement justice? Who is more righteous than one who obeys God?

  Your attitude is a defeatist attitude. When one day the Muslims are united
and strong, when no one dares to transgress against them, when they establish
a system that does not commit injustice against citizens or foreigners, when
the commandment of God is obeyed, wouldn't you want to be one of those who
contributed to it?

  Would you like to meet your Creator and say that you fought to make His
Justice supreme or would you prefer to meet Him knowing that you fought
His mandate? When we talk about establishing an Islamic government, we are
not choosing this one simply because we prefer it, we are choosing to obey
God. Obeying God is not an option, it is mandatory. We are advocating
a correct Islamic government because we know that God's law is supreme and that
there is no system above the law from our Creator.

  If you fear that an Islamic government can be oppressive then we need you.
Within every system there are those who try to corrupt it and use it to their
own advantage. Muslims need people with a sense of fairness who will continue
to advocate justice and fight oppression. People who will not allow their
state to mistreat Muslims, or nonMuslims. If that is your cause then you and
the Muslim Brotherhood have a common cause.

  I do not belong the the Muslim Brotherhood myself, but I see them as the
hope for positive change in the Muslim world.


Regards,

Mazen Mokhtar