FUNDAMENTALIZM MUZUŁMAŃSKI NA PRZYKŁADZIE DZIAŁALNOŚCI BRACI MUZUŁMANÓW W EGIPCIE I JORDANII
Muslim Fundamentalism Exemplified by the Case of Muslim Brothers in Egypt and Jordan

Summary/Abstract: The term „fundamentalism” has become very fashionable in Europe and the USA recently. The press in the West links this term to Islam, which being methodologically erroroneous, has, nonetheless, as a slogan gained universal currency. The Author sheds light on one of the major fundamentalist groupings active predominantly in the Middle East, that is Muslim Brotherhood. This enables him to present the phenomenon of islamic fundamentalism in a broader context. The Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentalist organization founded in 1928 by an Egyptian Hasan Al Ban. The Brotherhood has aimed both in the past and in the present at creating a society based on the Qurran principles as well as at rebuilding the Muslim unity, i.e. the califate. Currently, the organization acts in the whole world of Islam. It includes both extremist, even terrorist, and pacifist wings. The activities of the movement are discussed by the Author using an example of two countries – Egypt and Jordan. In Egypt the Brotherhood is often forced to act undercover, in conspiration, while in Jordan it has always been a legally recognised association. Using these examples it might be shown that organisations of this type act either in legally permissible or unlawful manners depending on the contextual conditions and the type of political regime framing their functioning. This conclusion is especially important if an attempt is made by an European observer to cast a value judgement on the Brotherhood. The organization of Muslim Brothers in Jordan has taken part in general elections since 1989, competing with political parties which have different political programmes within a pluralist electoral system. Whereas in Egypt the Brotherhood must take into account presidential authoritarian power, in Jordan it faces a challenge constituted by modern parliametarian system and fragmented public opinion. These differences are emphasized in the paper.

• Details
• Contents