Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Well, that's what I mean when I say you have terrible reading comprehension. Repeating what Al Quaeda said doesn't mean I share their opinion. Just sayin'.
Of course, you know that years ago the early Muslim Brotherhood split into factions, one indeed going with Al Quaeda and supporting violence, two going away from violence, and one of those two being in Egypt? Don't you?
|
I'm not repeating what Al Qaeda said I'm repeating what you said. Unless you now speak for them.
And what does the Muslim Brotherhood splitting up into factions have to do with any Al Qaeda attacks on the Muslim Brotherhood. I would think being as violent as they are they surely would have attacked a group they hated and had easy access to.
I will side with , "Of course, the huge gains in the 2005 parliamentary elections allowed the Brotherhood to pose "a democratic political challenge to the regime, not a theological one". Initially, there has been widespread skepticism regarding the movement's commitment to use its influence to push Egypt forward towards a democratic state. For instance, briefly after the elections Sameh Fawzy remarked in the Al-Ahram Weekly newspaper,
"If the Muslim Brotherhood were in a position to enforce its ideological monopoly, the vast majority of the populace would face severe restrictions on its freedom of opinion and belief, not just on religious matters, but on social, political, economic and cultural affairs as well"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
Sounds wonderful no?