By Ahmad alsarraf
One of the pretenders of virtue and honor accused me of being a pedantic prosecutor and that I am using Google. This pretender does not know that the use of Google is no different from the use of references, books, indexes and dictionaries, and that the task of search for something in Google is not a child’s game, as some might imagine.
Babiker Faisal Babiker, a Sudanese researcher in the history of religious movements, says many Muslim Brotherhood members who say that the ideas of using force to change conditions are not inherent in the approach established by founder Hassan al-Banna, but are merely emergency trends imposed by prison conditions and torture against the group and its leadership by the Nasserist regime, prompting the Brotherhood to introduce the ideology of violence and atonement, and how the group denounced it at a later stage.
The researcher who goes to the depth of the ideology of the group will discover the falsity of this claim, and realize that the idea of the use of force and violence is based on one of the fundamental ideas in the approach founded by the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood Hassan Al-Banna the difference between him and Sayyid Qutb was only on the timing and method not in principle and idea.
Babiker says that the idea of the use by the Muslim Brotherhood to come to power is derived from its legitimacy, the concepts and beliefs on which the group was founded and on which the principles of da’awah (preaching) are based. They are perceptions that give legitimacy to violence and are indispensable if the group has to attain power and dominate the world.
The founding Guide begins to justify the idea of the use of violence by explaining what he called the “sword in Islam” theory, in which he explains that Islam was spread by force to guide the misguided. “Power was nothing but the bitter pill used by the unfortunate mankind to break the might,” he said.
While it is only natural that access to power is the goal of all political parties that seek to implement their programs, in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, we do not deal with a political party that believes in democracy and elections as a means of perceiving governance, but rather an organization that seeks by all means to change governments that do not follow their understanding of Islam.
From the talks of Al-Banna we notice that he is a man who does not believe in democracy as a system of government and he does not see parties as political systems to compete. However, he believes that access to government is a cornerstone of religion such as fasting and prayer, and that access to government is only through violence, as long as the Brotherhood does not believe in democracy.
This means that the Brotherhood has no other means to come to power except through violence, especially since Al-Banna believes that the failure of Islamic reformers to come to power is an ‘Islamic’ crime. To avoid the crime, they must come to power by force’ and grab power from those who do not follow God’s orders.
The researcher concludes al-Banna unequivocally decided that all existing governments do not implement Islam as understood by the Muslim Brotherhood, and for this reason the group will not hesitate to come to power by all means, including violence and it is legitimate because this is a duty to enforce one of the basic pillars of religion.
We hope that some of those who claim to understand virtue to respond to this talk, which clearly shows the extent of the penetration of the idea of the use of violence and terrorism in the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood instead of evading them by describing others as money exchangers or a pedantic or using Google and to respond our former question about the meaning of the two swords and the word ‘prepare’ in the logo of the Muslim Brotherhood?