Skip to comments.Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood: Iran ‘enemy’ for arming regime
Posted on 04/11/2012 1:39:15 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
ISTANBUL: Secretary-General of Syrias Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Farouk Tayfour has hit out at enemy Iran for arming the Syrian regime, and described sponsor Turkey as a model Islamic state.
In an interview following what he described as a disappointing outcome at Sundays Friends of Syria conference in Istanbul, the Brotherhoods most senior representative at the Syrian National Council in Istanbul also confronted Kurdish accusations that the Muslim Brotherhood is doing Turkeys bidding to pursue an Islamic state in Syria.
He said the SNC is committed to a civil state representing all Syrians, but added that a new Syria should be proportionately represented.
Islamic culturally and secular politically, [Turkey] is the model for the Islamic movement, he told The Daily Star, adding, the Iranian, on the other hand, is the worst.
Tayfour, a longtime Brotherhood leader from Hama, left Syria during the persecution of the Brotherhood under Hafez Assad during the 1980s and is considered at the fore of the partys political activities.
In January, Tayfour revealed during an interview with Al-Hayat that he had rejected a power-sharing offer from Iran, which was conditional on Bashar Assad remaining in power.
Asked whether the position would change if another offer should follow recent talks and upcoming meetings between Turkey and Iran, Tayfour was resolute: The removal of Assad is a must.
If they change their position on this, well see, but for the moment, we know that Iran is supporting the regime.
Tayfour said he had evidence Iran had agreed to supply arms through Iraq. The contract was signed one month ago and activated a week ago, he said. They are killing our people, along with Russia, and so for that reason they are our enemy.
Asked how he saw the Iranian alliance in a post-Assad era, Tayfour said: It will be the continuation of a tense relationship ... there will be nothing new on Day Two.
Citing differing interests between countries in the Friends of Syria group, Tayfour said the final communique had fallen short of expectations to provide humanitarian corridors for Syrians, recognize the SNC in a legal capacity and arm the Free Syrian Army.
The Friends group of countries committed to increase technical and communications equipment for rebel forces but endorsed a Russian-backed statement from joint-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan which called for all parties to adhere to a cease-fire in the country, allow humanitarian aid in to the country and for the Syrian government and opposition groups to enter into dialogue. It did not call on Assad to step down.
Host country Turkey which has enjoyed a long relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood has led calls, along with the U.S., U.K. and France for Assad to step down. Importantly, in his opening address at the Friends meeting Sunday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not reiterate the call.
Tayfour said he believed Turkeys position was stronger than that voiced at the conference. The international community have differing positions on intervention, he said. Within that, the Turks are trying to maneuver and push ahead.
Erdogan has been ahead of the U.S. and Western position from early on, he said ... The Turks wanted the final statement to be stronger but was less stern on the international stage ... The U.S. is not in exactly the same position as Turkey.
Asked to define how the Brotherhood saw Turkeys role in Syria and the region more broadly, Tayfour said Erdogans Justice and Development Party (AKP) offered an ideal Islamic model.
Erdogans AKP party is the model for the Islamic movement, he said. It is a model for all the Islamic world.
Tayfour rejected Kurdish opposition claims that Turkey had pressured the council to remove demands for ethnic recognition.
The Kurds are only 8 percent of the Syrian population, he said, the rest are Syrians and Arabs.
We knew ahead of the meeting that the Kurds would quit the council they were seeking this attention.
He said the opposition in general does not need to represent 100 percent of the people ... In Europe if you win a majority of 51 percent, you can win government. Why is it not the same with [the council]?
Last month, ahead of the meeting, the Brotherhood issued a landmark 10-point statement outlining their aims for a moderate and pluralistic civil state that assured human rights and the womens role in a post-Assad Syria.
And it's also an argument that maybe it's a good idea to at least lower the level of tension between the US and Iran. There can be no good to us in a total destruction of the Middle East's balance of power. Total chaos and regional imbalance aid only terrorists.
Maybe we will luck out and they will mutually annihilate each other.
Then we can just waltz in and suck all their oil dry.
Just hope they stay away from nukes. That could make the oil radioactive.
The less Muslims around, the better, whether we eliminate or they eliminate themselves.
No it isn't. How many times have MB derivative groups Hamas and Fatah even spun rhetoric against each other only to show that they're as allied as they ever have been? More feigning of disorder, per The Art Of War . . .
More evidence of the deadly enmity between the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran and Shi'ism in general
All warfare is based on deception. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
That's what the liberals in DC have been hoping for for decades. Not happening at all.
Maybe we will luck out and they will mutually annihilate each other.
Then we can just waltz in and suck all their oil dry
There is nothing new here, but a lot that is not reported but really part of the story.
The Sunni-Shia divide in Islam is almost as old as Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni, the Iranian theocrats are Shia; they are both extreme and both fundamentalist Islamists (no separation of Islam and the state).
The Muslim Brotherhoods’ world HQ was moved to Saudi Arabia after Egyptian efforts to suppress it first sent its leaders underground. That hasn’t changed - it’s HQ is still there. Most of the world-wide financial support for the Muslim Brotherhood contines to come from Saudi Arabia, as does most of the international funding for Al Queda. Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood are merely two sides of the same Sunni extremist fundamentalist coin. Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood are playing “good cop, bad cop” with the non-Muslim and Muslim world, herding the unsuspecting into the arms of the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood.
The Iranian theocrats and the extremist Wahhabi-led Sunni’s of Saudi Arabia are in a religious civil war for the king of the hill in Islam. The west does not have a dog in that race. Either “winner” will not represent or project an Islamic power friendly to the west and its culture.
The city of Homs in Syria, the center of the “uprising” in Syria, is the center of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.
The “uprising” in Syria was instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria with the political and financial backing of the Saudis (who determined it was time).
In spite of lots of legitimate reasons for opposing the Assad regime, from inside or from outside, it’s not a true “uprising”.
It is a proxy war between the Saudi-Wahabbi-M-Brotherhood and the Iranian backed Assad regime, with the Syrian people as pawns. Either the current political monopoly will survive or it will be replaced by a different one - that’s all.
“There can be no good to us in a total destruction of the Middle East’s balance of power.”
What, in your view is, exactly, the “balance of power” in the Middle East - where is it “balanced”, where’s the “balance”.
Does the term have any real meaning, or is it a substitute for “status quo”, and are you so sure the terrorists are really threatened by the status quo?
>>>”Islamic culturally and secular politically, [Turkey] is the model for the Islamic movement, he told The Daily Star, adding, the Iranian, on the other hand, is the worst.” <<<
The current Iranian regime is definitely the worst. But, Turkey won’t stay ‘secular politically’ for long if the pattern of voting for Erdogan (AKP party or similar), by Turkish voters, continues or increases even slightly to favour Islamists.
Traditionally, post-Ataturk, 2 institutions have kept Turkey “politically secular”. 1) the Turkish military. 2) the Constitution of Turkey.
1) “Erdogan has intimidated the military with threats of state trials for treason so that there is no longer a military to protect the secular state.”
“In addition, the free press is under attack. Turkey has more than 2,000 journalists under prosecution and 4,000 others under investigation. The government is blocking thousands of websites it considers insulting, which means either insulting to the government, or insulting to Islam, and has jailed offenders.”
2) Erdogan hasn’t had the opportunity to change the Constitution as yet, but indications are that he wants to if provided with the opportunity.
“Fifty percent of the electorate voted for secular opposition parties, but Erdogan’s party won a plurality, giving him a third term as President. He didn’t win enough votes to revise the constitution without input from the secularist parties.”
As for women’s role & status in Turkey, which the MB’s Tayfour says is the “ideal islamic model”, he should’ve also noted that:
“Even The Economist (May 14, 2011) had to acknowledge that Turkey’s mildly Islamic government is hypocritical regarding its so-called reforms to protect women. Human Rights Watch notes that 42% of women over 15 have suffered physical or sexual violence, vulnerable even when pregnant......Turkey is now 126 among 134 countries in the 2010 Global Gender Gap Index.”
Finally, I don’t believe you can entirely separate “Islamic culturally” from “politically secular”, particularly in a moslem country that runs on a Democratic system, i.e. voter participation to elect the gov’t. Moreover, predominant culture will always heavily influence politics, if barriers are removed or not kept in-check, no matter where, but more so in Islamic countries.
So, “[Turkey] is the model for the Islamic movement” is bogus & a lot of guff.
Look at it another way:
AQ and MB are DEFINITELY Islamic & Islamist.
Mullahs, Ayatollahs et al, in charge in Iran, are “pro-Islamics”, and are “fundamentalists” too - even if they’re Shi’ites.
Iranian Ayatollahs also Actively support Sunnis & Wahhabis when it suits them. Look at Iranian regime’s support for the Palestinians for the last 3 decades - Palestinians are Still predominantly Sunni, not Shi’ites! So, why?!
Bottom line: AQ, MB and Ayatollahs ALL adhere to Islam.
But, Iranian Ayatollahs, mostly, give much more lip-service to Islam than AQ & MB do. Because Islam, Islamic/Arabic ideology, anti-West, anti-US stuff not only unites them with the Sunnis, but is, essentially, their bread & butter to hold on to Power & their Power base in “Shia” Iran. Even if that Power-Base is not the majority; they force it on the majority in Iran.
On the “majority in Iran” note, I believe the majority of Iranians, despite officially being Shi’ites, are not (mostly) moslems; neither culturally, nor in their practices. At best, the majority is very confused, and has been rightly frightened over the decades, due to forced, misleading religious education, as well as fear for their lives & livelihood. Emphasis on “forced”.
The UK, France, and the US, OTOH, over the decades, have simply supported Islam (Shia or Sunni). Politically, Socially, and Culturally. They’ve have let it permeate throughout, East & West. Especially as it suits their own agenda.
All in all, not a very complicated matter. But, more deliberately convoluted by all parties involved.
Keyword is ISLAM, itself.
Islam ultimately unites against “infidels”, does not divide the Islamists, who have their own agenda. They capitalise on & pride themselves on having indoctrinated entire countries & people.
For that you can thank Jorge Bush II, along with a hell of lot of other things that helped Obama get in office and threaten us with new Federal Powers.
the Assad regime has been, is and would remain ruthless towards any internal professed mortal enemies
yet, for the majority who just want education and work and a half-way decent living for their families, they and most secualists and most minorties have had more social freedom under Assads than will most religous minorities under a regime dominated or controlled by the MB
as I said, and as my main point stressed
their is little difference to the west or to true moderates and secularists in the Middle East between the Islam of the theocrats in Iran and the Islam of the Wahab-Saudi-MB alliance.
The race for top dog in Islam is not a race with any outcome that the West has a stake in either party - both are fundamentalist, extremist and seeking global Islamic dominance.
You are right and wrong as well.
Most Iranians/Persians are Muslims and not confused at all about it. However, prior to the dictatorship, and 30+ year reign, of the Shia theocrats in Iran, the practice of Islam with most Iranians/Persians were (1) not evangelical (seeking to “advance” Islam around the world) and (2) not fundamentalists; but truly ‘moderate’ Muslims with more of a ‘live and let live” attitude towards non-Muslims and not ‘puritanical’ judges againts their fellow Muslims.
But ‘most’ Iranians today are under the age of 25 and have grown up entirely under the theocrats knowing very little of Islam outside of what the mullahs have permitted them to learn.
While voting majorities unleasshed from the strick controls of the theocrats in Iran, on a few occasions, have shown their willingness to reject the political monopoly of the theocrats, it is not clear to anyone outside the Iranian people just what that means about their interpretation of Islam today. It is certainly not clear that the ‘democratic’ movements in Iran against the theocrats represents any outright rejection of Islam.
You are correct that there are many ‘fronts’ across the Middle East with many alliances of convenience that cross the Shia-Sunni divide.
Those alliances are temporary and mere expedients.
The Shia-Sunni divide IS as old as Islam and it is fundamental to Shia and Sunni branches today. Even ‘victory’ against ‘the west’ will not close that divide. And while all those alliances of convenience are going on, the theocrats in Iran representing the Shia at their most fundamentalist and the Wahabi-Saudi-MB aliance representing the Sunni at their most fundamentalist DO believe THEY (each of them) are currently in a global war against each other, to become the ulitimate leaders of Islam and put that divide to rest by eliminating or silencing the other side.
It is for that that the Iranians are developing nukes - not for war against the west (unwinnable by any measure), and it is for that that the Saudis - more than anyone else in the world, want us or the Israelis to end that project. Frankly, they would prefer we NOT do it ourselves, because if we do it then ALL Islamists will miss another opportuntity for another reason to hate the Jews. If Israel does it then the Wahabi-Saudi-MB alliance gets the Shia theocrats knocked down a peg and Israel gets the blame. How convenient. So, if it HAS TO BE DONE, then from my view it should be the U.S. alone and NOT the Israelis who should do it.
I agree w/ you that prior to the mullahs regime, Iranians by and large were far more passive about spreading Islam around the world.
Since my family & I lived in Iran up until 1976, can also tell you that the so-called “moderate” moslem stance in Iran was heavily & very obviously mixed with Zoroastrian teachings & philosophy in schools, on tv, magazines, and so on... except of course in mosques & seminaries in places like Qom.
A simple example, I recall just before sunset, every day, in the month of ramadan, and the moslems broke the fast period for the day, the state tv had a 20 minute program talking favorably about Zoroastrian philosophy, Ahura Mazda (by name), and so on.. then suddenly reciting moslem prayer from the Koran, with no explanation whatsoever how they made that sudden transition. The average person would obviously associate Ahura Mazda with Islam or some moslem prayer. Now, you would have not seen that in the Shia part of Iraq, for example.
If you note, I also previously said that (most) moslem Iranians are not moslems culturally (their identity) or in most of their practices. They just didn’t recognize what was islamic and what was not. Because a lot of what they were taught to be islamic was not islamic at all, but promoted under the banner of Islam. It was misleading education. The mullahs, however, did recognize it. At the very least, Iranians (mostly) practice a blend of Zoroastrianism & Islam. I can give you numerous other examples. So, in that sense, the average Iranian is indeed confused. What we and often they (Iranians) note as Sunni & Shia differences is not entirely accurate.
Since the mullahs’ regime, I can only reference what I’m told by various Iranians, including those in Iran, that the younger generation, largely, is very confused about Islam, is fairly depressed, and is significantly less religious than they were during the Shah’s era. The theocrats strict enforcement of Islam in Iran has also raised the curiosity of the younger generation about their Zoroastrian roots, be it surreptitiously, and there has been a Zoroastrian revival in Iran in the past 2 decades. They are learning more.. Of course, it can’t be discussed or done openly. So, officially, they are all Shia moslems. Unofficially, it is another matter. Not suggesting that they are going to convert to Zoroastrianism even if they could. I know for sure some are inwardly agnostic or atheist.
Am in no way disputing that “The Shia-Sunni divide IS as old as Islam...”. But I think that no matter what Israel does or doesn’t do, the Theocrats and Islamists will always blame Israel. Khomeini made that point very clear. He said anything and everything that goes wrong, blame it on America and Israel. IOW, they need an enemy to retain power and satisfy their power base in Iran & in other parts of the Islamic world. So, the US & Israel should just get rid of the Mullahs regime the best way they can, and not worry too much about the blame game from the regime.
But, for the average Iranian, Jews or Israel are not the problem, and they mostly don’t give a damn about Israel or the Palestinians. In fact, the average Iranian dislikes the Palestinians, at least those who have been roaming the streets of Tehran speaking Arabic, and have had an active part in helping the mullahs oppress, beat, rape, etc.. the Iranians. That, however, is not the case for the religious & practicing moslem Iranians in or outside Iran.
“What we and often they (Iranians) note as Sunni & Shia differences is not entirely accurate.” = is not entirely accurate *for Iran*, to be specific.
we are all indebted to your more intimate knowledge of the culture, past and present, in Iran
if we had a really good POTUS in the White House, all references, ALL US govcerment references, to those with whom we have issues, from Iran, would NEVER say “Iran” but would always say “the theocrat dictators in Iran”.
A good POTUS would make it clear that the theocrats in Iran, not “Iran” and not the Iranian people, is whom the U.S. has differences and issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.