There was a blackout, and we could only hear shouts of the brother in charge outside saying to the assault group commander: "Today is your end, Mubarak. We are the sons of Al-Qa'ida, Mubarak. Blood for blood, State Security! Our brothers' blood will not go in waste (referring to the demonstrators and protesters in Egypt)." Suddenly, extensive firing followed these shouts amid shouts by the brothers, saying: "God is Great", after they heard the shouts of their brother in charge outside.
We cannot forget that what happened in Ward Two happened also in Ward One. The brothers there were also shouting: "God is Great" and hurling stones, but on the other direction. We also knew that the brothers in Ward One had shown heroic stances, when they went out to the front tower of the snipers and hurled stones, pieces of glass, and iron tools at them, which forced them to withdraw. Because they had no gymnasium, the brothers in Ward Three did not go to the gymnasium area, but they launched a psychological war against the soldiers, which lowered their spirits, because they were facing them directly. They brought flags with the phrase: "There is no god but God" and put them on the windows. They also broke the windows for the brothers to go out.
Loud shouts and exclamations "with the phrase God is Great" in Ward Three followed the leader of Ward Two outside announcing his solidarity and unity with them. Ward One also did the same.
Some brothers looked through the openings at the outside of the ward and they saw the brothers preparing for getting out already. They also saw that the brother in charge was injured. We thought that he was shot, but he said that it was nothing. We knew later that he actually had severe bruises in his head, hand, and back because he was close to the forces during the first ambush. We knew that stones fell at him, while he was scouting their movements in proximity, because the place was narrow, and that he had no other option but to stand in that place. His and his companions' survival was a miracle of God in that ferocious battle in prison. He concealed his injury so that the brothers would not despair and lose control inside the ward if they knew about his injury. Then, there would be in chaos and the brothers would perish if dissension occurred as a result of his injury and his inability to manage the situation outside. Therefore, he reassured everybody that they would go out safely and that the situation was under control to make things easy for them.
Then, snipers and security forces ran out of bullets because of excessive firing inside the prison, and its walls and ward buildings became similar to villages in Khost and Kandahar in Afghanistan after a US bombing or a confrontation with the [Afghan] brothers. Then, the brothers in Ward Three came out of broken windows, while the brothers in Ward One and Ward Two came out of the gymnasium area. The brothers there suffered a lot because there were old and ill brothers among them.
Then, brothers of Ward Three asked all the brothers to leave the place. They supervised helping the other brothers who were locked inside the ward. A number of brothers from Ward One and Ward Two remained with them and ordered the others to leave. The brothers shook hands at the prison gates. Brothers of Ward One shook hands with brothers of Wards Two and Three, and also the other brothers of Ward One. Some brothers in Ward One provided first aid to the leader of Ward Two to relieve the pains he had in his back. Brothers of Ward Three cam to them and ordered everybody to leave immediately, and they also gave some money to most of the brothers to help them leave the area. Some brothers from Ward Three accompanied the other brothers to the road to protect them from bullying criminals. By the way, only some of the prisoners, who went out of the criminal section of the prison, did acts of bullying, and it was the security personnel who gave them weapons from the battalion to kill the citizens.
The heroic brothers in Ward Three and a number of other brothers remained in the prison until 2300 to get the other brothers out from their cells.
We knew that many brothers from Ward One went to the Al-Tahrir Square, as they had planned to do so, and they remained there, with another number of brothers from Ward Two, until the removal of the tyrant Husni Mubarak.
This story has been compiled from quotations of a number of detained brothers in Abu-Za'bal, who eye-witnessed the incident.
There were other incidents that took place in Ward Three of heroic nature, but we could not narrate them, in addition to other stories in Wards One and Two.
We ask God to accept the good deeds of our brothers. God bless you with His reward.
This posting is quoted.
[To view the vernacular, click here.]
[Description of Source: Ansar al-Mujahidin Network in Arabic -- Relatively new Salafi-jihadist web forum with a focus on global jihad, online since 2008; site correspondents reliably post Al-Qa'ida and affiliate messaging; URL: www.as-ansar.com/vb]
Interview with Najih Ibrahim, Founder of Egypts Islamic Group
GMP20110428825007 London Al-Quds al-Arabi Online in Arabic 28 Apr 11
[Interview with Dr Najih Ibrahim Abdallah, former leader of Egypt's Islamic Group, by Muhammad Nasr Kurum in Cairo.]
Dr Najih Ibrahim Abdallah is one of the founders of the Islamic Group, a member of its Shura Council, its spokesman, the editor-in-chief of its web site, one of the group's most prominent proponents, one of its decision makers, planners, and executors of the events of 1981.
Those events were an attempt by the group, in partnership with the al-Jihad organization, to seize power. After he was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1981, he participated with others in the first years of his imprisonment in composing the essays and literature of the group, which considered armed action to be an authentic means of achieving its goals. The violent incidents that the country witnessed in the 90s between the group and the Mubarak regime enjoyed his blessing, backing, and support. However, he, along with other leaders of the group, surprised everyone with their 1997 initiative to halt violence. He was one of those who made that decision to abandon his old way of thinking irrevocably. He toured the prisons and detention centers and exerted himself tirelessly to bring thousands of group members around to the idea of peaceful action and not using weapons against the government and the society. He became a theorist of the group's new thinking, about which he authored more than 25 books, dealing with many thorny subjects, especially subjects such as the sovereignty of Islamic law (hakimiyah), the forbidding of vice by means of armed jihad against ruling regimes, and relations with non-Muslims. He also dealt with the thinking and methods of al-Qa'idah, how the Islamic movement should coexist with ruling regimes working to suppress them, and other questions.
He was released after spending 24 years in prison, but he did not slow down. He continued to present the group's new thinking and methods by all available means and methods, leaving no issue without expressing his opinion about it. He remained in communication with a large number of political forces and parties and tried to gain access to all, regardless of their orientations and affiliations. He was a frequent guest on the satellite channels and on the pages of Egyptian, Arab, and international newspapers.
However, immediately after the revolution of January 25, things changed for him. Disagreements emerged between him and some of the group's leaders and members. The group then announced the appointment of Shaykh Usamah Hafiz, a member of the Shura Council, as its official spokesman, replacing Dr Najih. Then he surprised everybody by announcing that he was leaving the group's leadership and would devote himself only to Islamic preaching (da'wah). His decision raised many questions about the real reasons that caused a person like him to leave the group's leadership. This is an attempt on our part to learn the real, hidden, as-yet-unannounced reasons that caused him to make such a decision and to find out whether he might return again to the group's leadership or whether his decision is irrevocable.
[Interviewer] What are the real, as-yet-unannounced reasons for your leaving the leadership of the Islamic Group?
[Najih Ibrahim] To begin with, I want to stress that I shouldered administrative and executive responsibility for the group in the most difficult period it ever passed through in its history. This responsibility gained me experience that I needed, but at the same time it frequently harmed me, inasmuch as people lay in wait for me, my decisions, and my ideas. Never before did I think of resigning from the group's leadership. However, after the January 25 revolution, some people tried to outbid me. Some of them tried to return again to the idea of declaring the ruler an infidel (takfir). I therefore found it more fitting and preferable to leave the leadership completely. I thank these people for doing me good while they wanted to do me harm, because they caused me to make the greatest decision in my life after the decision of the initiative to end the violence: the decision to resign from leadership activities. I decided to devote myself solely to Islamic preaching and thought.
[Interviewer] What about the elections that the group is holding to choose its leaders? What position will you take if you are chosen as a leader of the group?
[Najih Ibrahim] The Islamic Group is now holding fair, transparent elections at all levels from summit to base. If the elections produce a leader other than myself, good! If they choose me as leader of the group, I shall definitely refuse. I will not return to the leadership again. I will remain for the rest of my life devoted to Islamic preaching, public activity, and encouraging some of the Islamic parties that will be established in the coming period.
[Interviewer] Why was Shaykh Usamah Hafiz appointed the group's official spokesman, replacing you, shortly before your decision to resign?
[Najih Ibrahim] I was the one who chose Shaykh Usamah. Many people were trying to outbid me. They were creating confusion between my articles and my being the group's official spokesman. I unburdened myself of this problem and nominated him to be the group's official spokesman, so that people would not confuse my opinions with the official opinion of the group. The group's Shura Council approved.
It is honor enough for me that I shouldered responsibility in the most difficult and critical of times. With the cooperation of my brothers, I guided the Shura Council to safety. Most of its members have come out of prison. All of their problems have been solved. Today nothing is harassing it, no one is blocking its course, or monitoring it and preventing its development. It has nothing to fear now after the January revolution, inasmuch as everybody now is breathing the fragrance of freedom and dignity. So I have left the group not fearing pursuit, persecution, or prohibiting from anyone. I am happy that I had a share in freeing hundreds from prison and made life easier for all the detainees from other movements. I stood surety for the release of many of them, although I did not know them. However, I understand that this time is not the time for me to bear responsibility.
[Interviewer] What particular points were held against you by some of the group's members and made them try to outbid you?
[Najih Ibrahim] Some tried to outbid me because I refused to make the group officially a participant in the demonstrations of the January 25 revolution. I did this out of fear, because the situation wasn't clear beforehand; making the group a participant in such a matter would have been a great risk for the group at a time of recovery after more than 20 years in prisons and detention camps. The group's financial situation was very weak. It had twelve members under death sentences. If the revolution failed, their sentences would have been carried out immediately. Foremost among them was Shaykh Mustafa Hamzah, the person primarily responsible for the attempted assassination of Mubarak in Addis Ababa in 1995. No leader would risk that.
However, anyone who wanted to participate without a directive from the group, did participate. We did not ask anyone not to participate. Thousands from the group therefore participated in the January 25 revolution. They joined the demonstrations, the marches, the guarding of the square, the protection of the demonstrations, and everything, but under no designation.
[Interviewer] If the various Islamic forces had participated in the revolution from its beginning, would the situation have been different somehow?
[Najih Ibrahim] The fact that the Islamic movement did not participate under its own name may have helped to protect the revolution from eradication. Had the revolution assumed an Islamic character and chanted Islamic slogans, it would have been destroyed and done away with in its cradle. However, it took a simple form, and so at first it was dealt with gently and leniently. It was treated more harshly only after the clash with the police, the battle with the camel, and afterward. This also moderated the West's antagonism and made all these international parties sympathetic to it.
[Description of Source: London Al-Quds al-Arabi Online in Arabic -- Website of London-based independent Arab nationalist daily with strong anti-US bias. URL: http://www.alquds.co.uk/]
Hani Al-Siba'i Criticizes Muslim Brotherhood Approach
GMP20110414836005 Ansar al-Mujahidin Network in Arabic 13 Apr 11
[Article attributed to Dr Hani al-Siba'i, the director of Al-Maqrizi Center for Historical Studies; place and date not given: "Which of the Two Approaches Deserves To Be Followed?" -- "Al-Gharib al-Ghazzi," user number 22193, posted the article.]
A Comment on the Remark Made by Dr Issam al-Irian
A quiet message to the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood: Which of the two approaches deserves more to be followed? By Dr Hani al-Siba'i, the director of the Al-Maqrizi Center for Historical Studies in London.
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,
Dr Issam al-Irian (a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood) commented on the statement by Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri dated 6 Dhu al-Hijjah 1426, [corresponding to 6 January 2006] on Al-Jazirah Channel and he said: "We are facing two approaches for work that are competing over reforming Islamic work for decades. If there is an approach and a school endorsed by the Muslim Brotherhood that will strengthen the ummah and change it from the roots in application of the verse: "Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls),"[Koranic verse, Al-Ra'd, 13:11], some other Islamists believe that the path to this [change] will be accomplished through power. Thus, they focused on power, governance and governments, and want to remove it from the way. Then they want to change it as they wish, by the authority of the ruler and not through the authority of the people, who want to change their situation.
Al-Irian stressed on the rightness of the approach of the Muslim Brotherhood by saying: "Experiences have proven that the revolutionary approach - contrary to the words of Ayman al-Zawahiri - faces a failure after the other because it endorses a very critical tool, which is change from the top. As for the reform approach adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood, it every day proves that it has become more established, powerful and constructive.
Commenting on Al-Irian's Remarks:
First, I would like to make it very clear that I wrote these words independently, and not because I am biased to Zayd or Umar [to anyone], but on the basis of adhering to the truth wherever it may be. I will also stress that what motivated me to write this comment was Dr Issam al-Irian's emphasis on the rightness of the approach of the Muslim Brotherhood and the failure of the approach adopted by Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri and the jihadist groups that is contrary to the approach of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to my humble point of view, Dr Issam al-Irian is not right, because his evaluation of Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri's approach about [creating] change was a sentimental evaluation filled with bias and vengeance; perhaps because of a temporary feeling of victory in the battle of the major legislative councils.
I believe evaluating any approach of any Muslim group is subject to how they are far or close to the sources of the Islamic law (Koran, Sunnah, consensus, analogy, etc). Thus, the question is raised by the dissenters of the Muslim Brotherhood approach on the legitimacy of their approach since the establishment of the group in 1928 and up to now. What is the criterion that makes us judge the success or failure of the approach of an Islamic group? Also, the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood did not respond to the historical facts and the events mentioned by Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri in his book (Al-Hasad al-Mur) [the bitter harvest] for nearly twenty years.
After this introduction, I hope the leaders and youth of the Muslim Brotherhood will be tolerant and respond to my message, which I will summarize through several examples from our current history, which we had experienced. Our destiny was to live in the era of continuous defeats. By God, we do not complain about matters that are destined by God. To discover the right path and to know who works according to a disciplined religious approach and who works according to a shaky approach that only yields failure;
First: The Muslim Brotherhood Group joined the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan with the US occupation forces during the Taliban reign. Among the most prominent figures of this trend, who entered Kabul under the protection of the US planes, tanks and armored vehicles were Burhanuddin Rabbani and Abdorrab Rasul Sayyaf, who are members in the International Muslim Brotherhood Organization. Despite this, the Muslim Brotherhood Group did not issue a statement condemning this shameful alliance or renouncing the actions of the two (Rabbani and Sayyaf)! It is noted that as soon as Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was one of the prominent leaders of the mujahidin in the past, attained the presidency of Afghanistan after the departure of the Communist Soviets before its dissolution went to Egypt and willingly announced that he was willing to hand over the Egyptian mujahidin living in Afghanistan; although the events were not so intense at the Egyptian or international level at that time. Of course we did not observe a statement from the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood condemning this reckless act and repugnant adulation by the former president Burhanuddin Rabbani. Is there any reward for good other than good? What did the Afghan people gain from the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood (Rabbani, [Qasim] Fahim, Sayyaf) in the alliance of the occupation forces other than failure, death, destruction, and the spread of vice?
Second: In Algeria, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mahfoud Nahnah, allied with the military junta against the Al-Inqaz [Islamic Salvation] Front, which had accepted the option of the polls following the example of the Western system just as the Muslim Brotherhood did. Instead of joining them he allied with the military ([Muhammad] Al-Imari, Khalid Nazar) against them. Then, he carried out a campaign to enhance the image of the suppressive military regime in Algeria and his party still follows the same approach. Despite this, the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood did not issue a statement condemning his alliance with the Francophone [French-speaking countries] that destroyed the land of Barbarossa. Nevertheless, was Algeria ruled by Islamic Shari'ah or were the sources of the religion dried up. Christianization was taking place in full swing during the reign of some ministers affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood! What did the Algerian people gain from joining the Muslim Brotherhood other than failure?
Third and most importantly: The US occupation and its allies of the land of the father of prophets, Ibrahim, and their occupation of the capital of Islam, Baghdad al-Rashid. We see the Islamic Party (the Muslim Brotherhood) allying with the Anglo-American forces of aggression. We see their leaders Dr Muhsin Abd-al-Hamid and Dr Salah al-Din Baha-al-Din, members of the Transitional Ruling Council that is appointed by the occupation forces, as well as the participation of Hajim al-Hasani, the Godfather of [Paul] Bremer's projects, who was appointed as president of the so-called National Assembly. Tariq al-Hashimi still continues this silly game and challenges the feelings of Muslims by insisting to participate in the elections legislated by the occupation to enhance his image, to belittle the mujahidin, and to contain and distort their image. In spite of this perpetuated major historical crime, which is still perpetuated by the Islamic Party, the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt did not issue a comprehensive statement disclaiming the Islamic Party and its leadership and condemning the party's alliance with the forces of aggression against the Land of the Two Rivers. It was more useful to apply the creed of allegiance and disavowal and to dismiss Muhsin Abd-al-Hamid and Salah-al-Din Baha-al-Din along with Hajim al-Husayni and Tariq al-Hashimi and all those who participated in the crime of occupying Iraq; no matter his standpoint, justification or sect. Unfortunately, none of that took place. What did the Iraqi people gain from the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the alliance with the US-UK occupation other than failure, death and destruction?
Fourth: In Malaysia the Muslim Brotherhood stood by the Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who was involved in corruption cases against Mahathir Muhammad, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, who quit voluntarily and gave a boost to his country economically, politically and socially. How should we explain this act by the Muslim Brotherhood before Mahathir Muhammad? I think this happened simply because Mahathir Muhammad was not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that was enough for them to stand against him although he was a sincere person, an expert, and a professional! The irony is that the Muslim Brotherhood complains about the ruling regimes for favoring trustworthy people (who are considered to be affiliated and loyal to the regime) over the people of experience (that are independents and do not want the reward or thanks from any party)! At the same time, we see the Muslim Brotherhood and the youth they raise in captivity keep to themselves. We see a young naïve person overnight become the leader of a professional union, for example, or an editor of a newspaper or an official of a bank etc. His only qualification is that he is a member of the [Muslim] Brotherhood; although he doesn't see, hear, or know! What is important is that he does not argue or discuss anything. He only follows the orders of the people of the wisdom in the Guidance Bureau, otherwise he will be subjected to isolation, segregation, and denial of all that is good and the prosperous future he expects!
Fifth: The statements of support and condolences to the unjust systems and dictatorial parties that conspired against the Islamic ummah [the community of Muslims worldwide], just like the condolence message to Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, who are the two largest agents of the US-Zionist alliance in the Arab world! With every armed operation that occurs here or there, the Brotherhood leadership takes the initiative to denounce, condemn, and excessively rebuke those who have conducted this operation against the occupation forces or the forces of injustice and oppression in the Muslim world. Examples of this are numerous, and this has become the habit of the Muslim Brotherhood since the Al-Nuqrashi [an Egyptian politician assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood] incident and even until our contemporary era!
Sixth: The Muslim Brotherhood and the Secularization of Islam: