Muslim Brotherhood Leader Interview

The USG Open Source Center translates an interview with Mahdi Akif, the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood. Akif defends the organization's failure to participate in the April general strike, saying that it was organized by the "facebook group" unbeknownst to him. He reiterates that his organization opposes the coming to power of Jamal Mubarak as his father's successor; that the MB seeks to impose sharia or Islamic canon law on Egypt; that his conception of shura or Muslim consultation differs from democracy in setting limits; that he would not accept Coptic Christians or women in high government posts; and that he supports al-Qaeda's attacks on occupation troops but not on innocent civilians. (He had earlier dismissed al-Qaeda as a US creation.)


Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood's Akif Supports Al-Qa'ida, Says Bin Ladin Is Mujahid
Interview with Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Guide Mahdi Akif, by Mahmud Abd-al-Rahim, from Cairo: "Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Guide Mahdi Akif to Ilaf: Bin Ladin Is Mujahid Whose Sincerity I Do Not Doubt, and I Support to Activities of Al-Qa'ida in Reply to Injustice and Corruption"
Ilaf WWW-Text
Friday, May 23, 2008
Document Type: OSC Translated Text


The interview with Muslim Brotherhood Guide Mahdi Akif has not been easy. Refusal was the first answer to the request for the interview; then, after talking forward and backward, and pleading for three weeks, a date was fixed for the interview. On the background of the circulating stories about the political and media restrictions imposed on Akif, especially with his slips of the tongue that have caused problems for the Muslim Brotherhood, and exposed it to attacks by the authorities in the Egyptian media, I was suspicious to the last moment that this date might not be honored.

Despite the fact that there have been previous telephone contacts with the man, this was the first time that I met him face to face in his office in Al-Manyal District overlooking the Nile in Giza. Contrary to what is circulating about him, Akif seemed friendly and open to the interview, which was supposed to end by the call for the noon prayer. I do not know whether this was caused by the calm tone in my presentation of the questions and his ignorance of my secular tendency, or by the fact that the man was acting naturally.

Anyway, the man did not deviate from the intellectual and inherited convictions of the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite the domestic and international changes, and the formal developments in the ideology and behavior of the group, the Muslim Brotherhood still insists on its stance toward democracy, women, and the Copts, even if the group is opening up toward the west.

However, the last thing that the Muslim Brotherhood guide said was expressing support for the activities of Al-Qa'ida, and describing Bin Ladin as a Mujahid who pursued the satisfaction of God by what he was doing, not to mention defending Sa'd-al-Din Ibrahim, the one accused of being the man of the United States and Israel in Egypt, in addition to supporting the existing regime in Egypt and considering that corruption existed only in a minority of this regime, despite the fact that he said that those governing Egypt were protected by the US and Zionist enemy.

Ilaf has conducted a lengthy interview with Akif about all the problems surrounding the Egyptian society and the Muslim Brotherhood group itself such as the stance toward Jamal Mubarak and his political ascent, the strong blows addressed recently at the group and their connection to its retreat from supporting the bequeathing of power, the accusations of possessing armed militia, the possibility of settling the power struggle with the National Democratic Party by force, in addition to other detailed issues. The following is the text of the interview:

(Abd-al-Rahim) In the beginning, let us stop at the latest developments witnessed in Egypt in which your stance has been criticized, I mean refraining from participation in the first general strike while waiting for a deal in the military tribunals, and then participating in the failed second general strike after your leaders were sentenced?

(Akif) This is not true. We have participated in all protests. The statement we issued on 6 April was clear and strong, as we stressed that we participate in all strikes that would be in the interest of any sector of the people, and in the interest of Egypt in general. With regard to the criticism to which you refer about the 6 April strike, we participated, but in our own way. It is a participation that does not create chaos, and does not split the society. If we did not announce our participation in a completely clear way, this was because we did not know the side standing behind this strike, because the call came via the Internet, or rather through the "Facebook" activists. As for the 4 May strike, we participated in it in a clear way, because it adopted the moral aspects, such as the call to stay at home, or to refrain from buying government newspapers, aspects that gave the strike its momentum.

(Abd-al-Rahim) But the observers consider that you let the masses down on 6 April, and hence they punished you on 4 May, the date on which the strike failed, and showed that your participation had no influence, and did not have any effect contrary to what was circulating all the time about your power in the street?

(Akif) The Egyptian press has nothing new to say, and what it says has no value, and does not achieve any benefit.

(Abd-al-Rahim) But the people in general were expecting from you a stronger stance in the midst of pressing political and economic conditions on the basis that you are the strongest faction. The people expected for instance a call for civil disobedience, which you have not dared to declare?

(Akif) Civil disobedience is something and a strike is something else. Civil disobedience is worthless unless there is a general consensus, and the decision is taken by all the political powers. If we welcome a strike, it is in order to achieve a temporary benefit. Moreover, we do not represent the entire people; when we have the right to represent the entire people, we will call for civil disobedience.

(Abd-al-Rahim) It is true that you do not represent the entire people; however, the Muslim Brotherhood and the ruling party are nearly the only players on the political arena. Therefore, why do you not play your role?

(Akif) Personally, I do not consider the Muslim Brotherhood and the ruling National Democratic Party to be the main players, because there is only one player with no partners, namely the people. The National Democratic Party rules through oppression, and has led the nation to this backward level, while the Muslim Brotherhood's role is education at high levels of creed, ethics, and culture, because of the Brotherhood's wish to reform.

(Abd-al-Rahim) If you do not recognize the power of the ruling party or your influence, who rules Egypt, or controls its people other than you two?

(Akif) Of course we do not rule Egypt. Egypt is under the control of an oppressive tyrannical group that has money and authority, and relies on the foreign US and Zionist enemy.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Let me rephrase the question. If you - I mean the Muslim Brotherhood and the ruling party - are not engaged in a power struggle, why have the security blows addressed at your movement intensified recently?

(Akif) The blows are addressed not only at the Muslim Brotherhood, but also at all Muslims resisting the US-Zionist project.

(Abd-al-Rahim) If you look at the scenario of bequeathing power to the son of President Mubarak, do you not consider that the issue has a domestic dimension?

(Akif) The bequeathing of power is not the reason, because the issue, as I said before, is linked to the resistance to the US-Zionist project.

(Abd-al-Rahim) By the way, why is the change in your stance toward the bequeathing of power, and changing from support to opposition of the son of President Mubarak?

(Akif) We have not changed our stance twice, but we changed it three times. In the beginning, we welcomed the nomination of Jamal Mubarak as any ordinary citizen; however, when they amended Article 76 of the Constitution, which specifies the selection of the president from more than one candidate, and made it made-to-measure for the son of the president, I said that if he wanted to become a candidate, he should leave his father's palace and come down to the ranks of the people. When they amended other constitution articles by which they legislated tyranny, not to mention the policy of the (National Democratic Party's) Policies Committee, which is chaired by Jamal Mubarak, and which was found to strengthen tyranny, and support the military tribunals and security tampering under whose oppression Egypt labors, I then said: Jamal is not welcomed, and is 100 percent rejected.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Thus, should I understand from your words that the clash with you came on the background of refusing to support the ascent of Jamal Mubarak to power?

(Akif) The blows are focused on us because they feel that the Muslim Brotherhood has real presence in the street, and it is also against the US-Zionist project.

(Abd-al-Rahim) As you repeat mentioning the United States and its support for the existing regime, what about your own contacts with the United States, which has been continuing since the invasion of Iraq, and the presentation of the Greater Middle East project?

(Akif) Our stance toward contacts with the United States is completely clear. We engage in dialog with all the civil society institutions, universities, media, and study centers in the United States without embarrassment whether here or there. However, when the issue is related to the US Government, we adopt another stance. Since I have become Muslim Brotherhood guide, I stress that there will be no dialog with foreign governments except in the presence of a representative of the Egyptian Government; this is out of respect for the laws and rules of the country in which I live.

(Abd-al-Rahim) What about the meetings that took place inside the US embassy with US officials, not to mention the opinion polls conducted every now-and-then by the US ambassador personally?

(Akif) This is not true. What happened at the US embassy was merely a celebration in which members of the Muslim Brotherhood participated as invited guests. If anyone wants to engage in a dialog with the Muslim Brotherhood, this dialog has to be conducted with me personally.

(Abd-al-Rahim) What about the secret dialogs that took place through the US man in Egypt, Sa'd-al-Din Ibrahim, in European capitals?

(Akif) This man is being wronged. He has nothing to do with us except as a fellow prisoner of some members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

(Abd-al-Rahim) But he is openly the United States man, not to mention that he promotes normalization; therefore, how could you defend him after your previous stances toward him?

(Akif) We have nothing to do with him. Moreover, is he the only one who supports normalization? What about those who sold gas to Israel, or those who signed the QIZ (Qualified Industrial Zones) agreement of commercial and industrial nature? Is all this not normalization?

(Abd-al-Rahim) Let us stop at the problems observed by the research centers in the west about your movement, and which arouse controversy when thinking of dealing with you whether at the domestic or foreign levels. Let us start by the stance toward the Copts, or rather the Christians of Egypt?

(Akif) We consider them as Egyptians who have the same rights and duties as we have, and who have complete citizenship from birth. This view is not introduced by me, but it is according to the shari'ah of God, who honors man.

(Abd-al-Rahim) You talk about the Christian enjoying complete citizenship; what about your rejection of his ascent to the presidency under the slogan "Supreme guardianship cannot be given to a Copt?"

(Akif) With regard to the ascent of a Copt to the guardianship, this issue is subject to contention among the Muslim ulema. Some ulema say that it is allowed, while others say that it is not. We tend to agree with the second option, namely that it is not allowed; however, the final word is up to the people.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Is this not a clear violation of the citizenship?

(Akif) It is not a violation at all. This is the culture of the citizen who lives in a Muslim country that has its values and principles, which ought to be respected.

(Abd-al-Rahim) In your opinion, is Egypt a Muslim country, or is it a pluralistic civil society?

(Akif) We are a Muslim country on the basis that the overwhelming majority of the people are Muslims, and the culture, customs, and conventions are Islamic. This is what the Christians understand.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Does not your discriminatory address of the Egyptian society, or rather describing it as "Islamic," arouse the apprehensions of Egypt's Christians, and even the western ones, of your group?

(Akif) This address cannot arouse the apprehensions of any rational man, because we do not attack the freedom of the people or their wealth. On the other hand, we now live in a country that allows everything, including the attack on wealth.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Then, you still plan to apply the Islamic shari'ah as soon as you ascend to power?

(Akif) If we ascend to power, this will mean that the people believe in our vision. Moreover, do we live for anything other than the shari'ah? The Egyptian Constitution itself says this.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Why do you not learn from the Turkish experience, i.e. preserve your ideas within the framework of a non-religious civil society?

(Akif) When the Justice (and Development) Party succeeded in Turkey, immediately a journalist asked me: Will the Muslim nation benefit from the Turkish experiment? I said: It will not benefit, because the Justice and Development Party ascended to power as a result of a democratic experiment, but in our countries there is neither freedom nor democracy.

(Abd-al-Rahim) As you consider Egypt to be a Muslim society, and you pursue the application of Islamic shari'ah, what about your stance toward the building of churches?

(Akif) The building of churches, as our Shaykh Al-Ghazali said, is subject to the law. This building process has to be organized according to the numbers of Muslims and Copts.

(Abd-al-Rahim) But there is a freehand in building mosques, and you encourage this; why should not the same thing apply to the churches?

(Akif) The law is the one to organize this.

(Abd-al-Rahim) What about the tense relationship with Pope Shinudah, the head of the Egyptian Church, and the accusations leveled at you that you are responsible for the sectarian tensions in Egypt as a result of the pursuits to Islamize the society?

(Akif) With regard to the relations with Shinudah, this question should be addressed to him. With regard to the other part of the question, I wish you would abandon the terminology and words of the secularists. The Muslim Brotherhood has a close relationship with the Copts. We have had Coptic advisers since the days of Imam Hasan al-Banna, and the relations are extensive. We have nothing to do with the political and security deviations that have been started by Al-Sadat; we have not changed our policy or ethics, and our way of dealing with the Copts is the same as it was.

(Abd-al-Rahim) What about your negative, if not hostile, stance toward the Egyptians Against Religious Discrimination Movement?

(Akif) I do not like to hear such nonsense. There is no religious discrimination in Egypt, because there is no coercion in religion.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Let us move to the second problem; I mean women and your stance toward them?

(Akif) Among us, women are honored. I challenge any civilized project to honor women as much as Islam does.

(Abd-al-Rahim) What about the rights of women, among which is the right to ascend to senior posts? Has your stance changed positively toward the right of women for instance to ascend to the presidency?

(Akif) The ulema also disagree about the issue of the supreme guardianship of a woman, and whether it should or should not be allowed. We have the right to choose one of the two opinions, and we have chosen that it is not allowed.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Then, in your opinion, how do you honor women while you do not believe in their right to ascend to the senior positions; moreover, women are far from even the leading positions within the Muslim Brotherhood?

(Akif) Should I place them in positions that would expose them to imprisonment?! The activity of the Muslim Brotherhood women through which they satisfy God is to bring up their children well. Let me give you a living example; when some female members of the Muslim Brotherhood were nominated as candidates in the parliamentary elections, what happened to them? Moreover, do you not know that the woman is under the guardianship of the man, who does not want her to be "trampled upon?"

(Abd-al-Rahim) What about your stance toward democracy, have you crystallized a clear stance, or are you still within the realm of the talk about Shura [consultation]?

(Akif) Shura [consultation] is the highest level of democracy in its respect of the human being.

(Abd-al-Rahim) This claim is rebutted, because Shura [consultation] has nothing to do with democracy as it is not binding, and the ruler is the unilateral decision maker. Therefore, how can it be the highest level?

(Akif) Shura [consultation] is the perfect democracy if it is done properly and respects shari'ah. I distinguish between Shura and western democracy that allows man to do whatever he wants, and to do the things that God has not ordered. Among us, the leader comes only through Shura, and the final word is up to the Guidance Bureau and not to me. I am talking about democracy here, in the society and not within the group!

(Abd-al-Rahim) Then, are you, as it is circulating, riding on the wave of democracy in order to fulfill your aims despite the fact that you do not believe in it, and after that you will show your dictatorial face, and implement the policy of closed doors?

(Akif) We now are back to using the words of the secularists! I reject this logic, because it judges the intentions, and it has no aim other than muddying the issues.

(Abd-al-Rahim) When I talk to you about democracy in society, you talk about democracy within the group. Therefore, what do you say about dismissing or marginalizing the objectors within the group, and the divisions that occur every now and then among you?

(Akif) We have not dismissed anyone. Does the departure of 10 or 100 members of the group out of millions mean that there is an exodus or a split? My group is open, whoever wants to stay can stay, and whoever wants to leave can leave. This does not bother us.

(Abd-al-Rahim) But one of the dissidents, namely Imad Taha, apart from his talk about the dictatorship prevailing within the organization, talks about militias belonging to the group, and receiving semi-military training within Egypt, and military training in Iraq and Palestine?

(Akif) This is a lie and it is unfounded.

(Abd-al-Rahim) What about the military parade that took place some time ago in Al-Azhar University, and whose members were put on trial?

(Akif) This alleged military parade was nothing other than a sports program that has taken place dozens of times. Encroaching upon this program was a secular and security buffoonery, and the proof is that the court exonerated the members.

(Abd-al-Rahim) I would like to dwell on the financing of the group, and the extent to which this financing was affected by the trial that took place recently of Engineer Khayrat al-Shatir, and the confiscation of his wealth, especially as he was the principal financer of the group's activities?

(Akif) Khayrat al-Shatir and Hasan Malik were not financers of the group, and we have neither investments nor a single cent in any bank. The activities are based on what the sons of the group pay from their pockets, and we do not accept a single cent from anyone who is not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

(Abd-al-Rahim) What about the talked-about Saudi and Iranian aid?

(Akif) I challenge anyone to present a proof of this accusation.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Let us steer away from the domestic dossiers. Let me ask you about your stance toward the call by the second man in Al-Qa'ida, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for addressing strikes at the inside of the Zionist entity on the sixtieth anniversary of the catastrophe?

(Akif) Al-Zawahiri can do what he likes.

(Abd-al-Rahim) But historically you have sent fighters to the occupied territories. Could you repeat the same stance now?

(Akif) Yes, we have sent fighters, but the army and the government fought on our side. Now if they allow us we will send fighters to resist the occupation, whether in Iraq or in Palestine.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Does the resistance need government permission?

(Akif) Do you want us to clash with the government?

(Abd-al-Rahim) As we talk about resistance and jihad, do you consider Usama Bin Ladin a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid?

(Akif) Most certainly he is a Mujahid. I do not doubt his sincerity in resisting occupation for the sake of God Almighty.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Does this not contradict your previous description of Al-Qa'ida as US-made?

(Akif) The name is US-made, but Al-Qa'ida as an ideology and organization came as a result of injustice and corruption.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Then, do you support the activities of Al-Qa'ida, and to what extent?

(Akif) Yes, I support its activities against the occupier, but not against the people.

(Abd-al-Rahim) Finally, what about the next scenario in Egypt? Would you resort to force to settle your conflict with the Egyptian regime if the doors were to remain closed before you?

(Akif) I do not consider that we are in conflict with the regime, but we are in dispute. We have to help the regime and respect it, because only a small group controls power, wealth, and security. We are dealing with the situation with extreme patience and wisdom in order to put an end to corruption without destroying the institutions or instigating chaos. We have hope in the future, and confidence in the great Egypt.

(Description of Source: London Ilaf WWW-Text in Arabic -- London Internet daily providing independent coverage of Arab and international issues. URL: http://www.elaph.com)