Mohammed Mahdi Akef Quotes

Gordon himself was killed shortly thereafter by the Madhi’s followers at the siege of Khartoum. Ahmed died soon thereafter. Although Ahmed was an extreme religious fanatic, and a skillful leader, he was not a terrorist.

He was in many ways centuries ahead of his time with constructive ideas for any people and age. However, this was one of the exceptions. Unfortunately it became the norm for most Islamic countries even to modern times. Essentially, a bad ruler in this Islamic doctrine can be removed only if he does not follow Islam. For just being unjust or incompetent, revolution is not allowed and prayer is the only recourse. That is one of the major reasons that there have been so few Arab uprisings and revolutions although there have been many assassinations for alleged religious apostasy or insufficiency.

This quotation is used by the moderate Egyptians and other moderate Arab leaders as well as Israelis and other experts in combating Islamic Fundamentalism to illustrate the thinking process of the Muslim fundamentalist terrorist leader. They are more than willing to sacrifice those they lead (though rarely themselves) if they think that something is to be gained. But if there is nothing to be gained, their “moral” responsibility requires not “wasting” their followers’ lives. Therefore, the way these experts believe they should deal with the radicals is to face them with overwhelming force (a variant of the Powell Doctrine) and never concede anything or let them gain anything from violence. A single concession makes the terrorism, sacrifice and violence worthwhile, but if there is no gain, the leader has wasted the lives of his followers and is less likely to initiate another attack.

The last Caliph of the Muslims was removed in 1924 as part of the Turkish Reform. The position has had attraction for many Muslim leaders who saw themselves in the role, but since 1924, nationalism and modernism and the lack of an effective international Muslim leader has precluded it. This anti-revolutionary sentiment of the Islamic political state that is so traditional, may in part account for the Islamic tolerance of autocratic regimes. Note that the distinction between religious responsibilities and civil are important. Tyranny must be tolerated but not blasphemy or heresy. Traditional Muslims provide more tolerance and forbearance for a leader’s civil failings than religious. But Muslims were not the only people to do this. A British prime minister had a view with the same conservative logic. See {639130}. The ancient Jewish Macabean revolt against the Jewish king was all based on failure to perform required religious duties of sacrifice as opposed to tyranny and poor government which also existed. Popes excommunicated Kings for religious reasons, not because of their civil failures at governing. Holding rulers accountable for civil performance is a relatively new concept yet is indispensible in a modern democracy.

What is particularly interesting about this passage is that a Middle Eastern contemporary historian and commentator compared circumstances to political events with the Umayyads and the Abbisids to those in Persia and Rome. Chosroes (Khosrow) was a Persian King who had his brothers murdered, and Caesar was viewed as a tyrant. Even then, the history of politics, in one country influenced events and attitudes in others,

This is a very important quotation as it shows the logic of many Islamic terrorists. To them Jihad is not terror regardless of what means are used. If the cause is just, like driving unbelievers from what they call Islamic land, then the violence is Jihad and is not only moral but is obligatory for a good Muslim. However if the cause is not moral—like invading someone else’s land, then the same actions are terrorism. The rest of the world defines terrorism by the means of the struggle—not the righteousness of the cause. Suicide Bombing which kills civilians shopping or at a wedding reception is terrorism whether the political or other end is good or bad. At the same time, members of the Muslim brotherhood often when they are speaking to Westerners or the media say that they are opposed to terrorism. The terrorism they are opposed to does not include to them does not include the terrorism of 9-11, the kidnapping and beheading of journalists, or bombing innocent civilians. That is why they can fund and support Hamas—the Palestinian component of the Muslim Brotherhood and still say they oppose terrorism. The occupation is the major offence they must rectify. The reality is that every group of people currently in the Middle East, is descended from peoples who occupied land by conquest and then were conquered by others. In Christ’s time, for example, Jerusalem and the area population was virtually all Jewish but the Romans had conquered and controlled the land. Some of the Jews became Christians, and they both shared the land because Christians then considered themselves to be a sect of Judaism. Then there were many conquests and re-conquests. The city has changed hands by force 44 different times. The Israelis were the last to capture it, The Jewish people were also amongst the earlier conquests, and the Palestinians argue that they inhabited the land even before Islam. Compared to Jerusalem, the problem of who has the right to the old Cherokee land in Georgia today is simple.

Part of the problem lies in a part of the Muslim religion which values stability over all else except Islam itself. Traditionally Muslims have been told to tolerate a bad, corrupt leader, unless he is blasphemous. So dictators who can create an alliance between themselves and the religious influentials by giving them money and allowing them to control civil society as in Saudi Arabia, have been insulated from rebellion and revolutionary forces.

The Germans allied themselves with the Islamic insurgency of the day as a strategic maneuver. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem broadcast propaganda from Nazi radio in Berlin and was dispatched to organize Muslim fighters in Iraq. Fascism was introduced into the Middle East and the Arabs and Persians saw it as a natural extension of their authoritarian and highly prescriptive forms of religious and civil government. 60 years later, there would be Islamic Fascists throughout the Middle East in control or vying for control of many of the countries.