realize we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spendinges problem. been in at least a couple times since ie i've been in the united states , senate i've heard this argument with increased taxes 1 dollar reduce expenditures two or thre. or $4. sometimes it's $2, sometimes it's $3, sometimes it's $4 behind those ideas. the sounds very good, doesn'thy but here's why eight the ascentf work and why bringing in 1 dollar of new taxes spending of $1.17 as the professor of ohio university studied this for a yu long period of time.til you in fact you increase taxes until

you decide to do something else with the taxes. annually and for some reason ort another after that first year, d appropriations tend to creep up and consequently the intention of raising taxes by 1 dollar reducing expenditures by three or $4 as well intended as it is, you just gradually its eroded on the expenditure side.f of tt that you end up not reducingoriy expenditures as you havei yld originally indicated.mr. presena i would yield the floor, mr. president and said just the absence of a quorum. >> more coverage of nine of the u.s. islamic world forum.

we are live for the panel democracy in the muslim world expected to begin shortly. now this is the first time the u.s. islamic world for them as being counted in washington. the associated press today advocates for this discussion to begin and the house is expected to vote tomorrow on a spending bill for the rest of this budget year. negotiated between president obama, house speaker john boehner and senator majority leader harry reid. a new from the congressional budget office released today shows that the bill would produce less than one per cent of the $38 billion in claimed savings by the end of the year. about $8 billion of cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid are offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending. that's from the congressional budget office today. the government of copper and brookings institution are hosting the discussion on democracy in the world and we expect the speakers to come to the podium shortly.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] some of our live coverage tomorrow on oversight panel examines the effect of the state

government that on budget priorities. people here from wisconsin governor scott walker in vermont governor peter chinley. live coverage from the house oversight committee begins at 9:40 on c-span3. and then later in the day a house armed services committee looks at the management of the arlington national cemetery. this comes as new details emerged about their record keeping at the military cemetery. live coverage of this begins at 2:00 eastern also on c-span3. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the government of clutter and a brookings institution hosting

this u.s.-islamic world forum. some more news from today the house rules committee this evening approved the rules for tomorrow's house floor debate on the republican budget for next year, fiscal 2012. the rules committee debated the bill this afternoon with budget committee chairman paul ryan talking about the gop proposal he put together and a congressman chris van hollen about a democratic alternative that he's offering. you can see the meeting from today on c-span and at c-span.org. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome margaret warner and our distinguished panel.

♪ amol conversations >> thank you, everyone. it's great to be back after that delicious dinner, and i'm glad to see so many people here for this topic. democracy in the muslim world. i'm just going to tell everyone what the game plan is. we absolutely have to be finished by 9:30. i'm going to go maybe 45, tending to go to questions from all of you as well. we will try to mix that up but when ken pollock asked me if i

do this panel and when i look at everything else we're talking about i say every one will be talked out and talk about democracy in the muslim and what is there new to say and we hope what we say tonight is -- we have all been discussing for today's this kind of wrenching change in the islamic world about tonight we have four men and unfortunately they are all men from countries and its different stages in the development of democracy we have egypt which i hope investor in the baby steps teach, and we have afghanistan and iraq war a decade or less in to it, and then turkey which has had the design of the parliamentary democracy for a long time but

this certainly redefining it today in a kind of islamic context. so i think that of course these countries are different we certainly have somebody from one of the populous muslim countries, much doherty countries, malaysia or indonesia but we have a representative groups to look at the following questions. in the muslim world embarks on the path of democracy or is on the path of democracy has to reinvent the wheel, or is their something, are other models, are there common solutions to similar challenges that this part of the world can learn from one another despite differences of history or the sector or ethnicity and secondly an alleged easter the tissue to get to this what can the u.s. and non-islamic world do to help that's going to be helpful and not meddling so we are going to

explore all that dr. abdullah abdullah on my left on his afghanistan and had a major opposition group called the coalition of change of scope and i know many of you know a longtime investor to washington went back a couple of years ago and is now the founding dean of the school of local affairs and public policy at american university of cairo. the national security adviser to the president of turkey and also quite a scholar in islamic studies, and [inaudible] when i just say? excuse me, from iraq and a prominent member of parliament so let me begin and i think i will begin with abraham kalin

asking all of you to weigh in on this is their something special with distinctive about democracy in the muslim world? >> yes and no people in the muslim world don't have to reinvent the wheel for the fair and just political system that would recognize and implement the principles of human dignity just as the quality these are some universal principles that are shared across the board. but in circumstances the principals will be implemented obviously to display certain varieties and certain differences. summer huntington wrote the famous arbuckle which he turned into a book leader, clash of civilizations. some he made about the state of democracy in the muslim country is there. they're interesting and in my view at the time i had to do something about it also were

based on misguided diagnosis if i may say so and he said something like the fact you have a lack of institutions of democracy muslim countries show that there is no culture of democracy and hard to move from that to the conclusion is indicative of the kind of thinking he was representing and for the muslim countries, the arab countries some of them didn't of the institutions of democracy that developed in the western hemisphere but that doesn't mean necessarily there was no culture of democracy were there was no culture of the consultation, no culture of social networking. they were never visible, they were never part of the social political rhetoric of the society because they were considered to be under authoritarian regime so must

become most of the culture of democracy is to go in a kind of clandestine way instead of becoming a defining element of the society. and i think we realize now after what happened in tunisia and egypt it's clear that the debate has been there all along. they were just waiting for that moment to kind of, you know, spring forward and showed the world and they do have the culture, the philosophy, the understanding and the perception of what the space society representative society should be like. and the institutions will be established along away but it's never one time project commits a work in progress given the most advanced countries of the west you always have to work on the system. >> let me follow-up with you for a minute. in designing the democracy and building at is their something

special of what is billed as opposed to say a western model and there's no one western model as you know what is their something distinctive about the muslim world? >> again, yes and no. i'm not dodging the question but i am just trolleying to point to a multiple by mention of the debate. in a sense, yes, there is something in the genius of the culture of the islamic tradition and one has to take that into account to understand the dynamic in the muslim countries. for instance the way that the maternity develops in the 18th and 19th centuries callis always had difficulties with the historical religious ethical cultural norms and values of the muslim societies that set entire religious, and religion type of secularism for example, radical

form of enlightenment type of secularism has always considered religion to be a threat to democracy to the development come to the social cohesion and stability in the 19th century and the founders and the 19th century and early 20th century believed in some of this idea can you come along way in the multiple maternity wear no single actor can define what modernity is. but more importantly move from the stage of the classical modernization to the globalization. classical modernization had a well-defined model and everything was kind of designed in western europe the ideas were there, the ideas of the french revolution individualism, secularism, nation states and other key founding ideas have enlightened the am i to medical position has changed but completely it's not working inaudible directions and from the is contributing to that

process. it's not a single trajectory. different ideas. it's not surprising to see people using the so-called social media. but some people in a rather oriental listed away look up to the fact egyptians know how to use facebook. [laughter] what was surprising about that? the have been way ahead of the curve in fact in some of the areas. >> there is something special will about the democracy, should there be? >> i would say that in flux perception about the muslim world in the west there is something specific and it's moved and shifted with the event in the middle east and also in the islamic world countries like malaysia and indonesia.

>> that perception has shifted and coming to my country [inaudible] so it's not in the air ability islamic world, afghanistan doesn't work. that is the perception which is changing today, and there isn't anything inherent in the islamic world bill would prevent a population to achieve, and so referring to egypt in the square , but i was watching tdo, cnn and bbc and others when people were starting to pay the

time there was an analysis attached to that that perhaps this is this islamic radical so they don't want democracy and so on and so forth, so that is the perception. and also in this perception is by the leaders, democratic leaders, to communicate with their friends in the west, their supporters in the west that the issues for us to deal with it because you don't know about the complications. it's our job and we know how best to deal with it, and then of course avoiding any move towards the democratization.

so the combination of the two is the perception but nevertheless when we are talking of a liberal democracy, the role of islam and its teachings which in its tenants and the spirit if you are talking about justice, if you are talking about togetherness, honesty towards equality, and peaceful coexistence and accountability of the government, so you don't see any problem there but then there are cultural aspects of it which there are intends to copy of the liberal world and the muslim world. which would be the reaction.

>> ambassador fahmy, how do you see this as you embark on this project? >> well, i actually don't. i disagree with the question. i don't really see why democracy is different light would be the scene through the muslim world because if you look to the basic principles value-added you want to achieve when they would be shared in the muslim world or outside the muslim world, how we achieve them even in the muslim world will be a function of each one of our own realities of culture. so yes, i would argue that religion is an important component in the value that we have, but again, christianity and juadism to look at your

interpretation the of increased democracy. it's the misinterpretation of religion that ends up giving the wrong impression and you can quote from all three of the sacred books provisions which would be anti-democratic if taken out of context which are taken of the larger context. so i just find this idea miller is it possible in the muslim world or not from those of side rather than anything on the empirical evidence that is tested in the muslim world or even as a unified perception of democracy in the muslim world. >> let me hear from mr. mr. [inaudible] is their something different about the western model versus the model of the world and you don't seek the need to think so, you think every country is particular and whether they are

muslim or mostly christian is part of the detail but let me ask how do you see this, you were right at the beginning anyway, too. >> in the last seven years it was indicative decade of shame and then immediately we switched to words one the space process so people were not really ready for this, so we have to tell people for the democracy, for the culture that in the democracy needs to have a strong civil society. we need to build institutions, we need to build trust between the people and and the

government come and our experience - we have an election where the government has the power and the marginalized new so this is not a real space process. >> so a zero sum thinking that it's a chance to control and people who were about one see that we, too. >> it gets in the power, so you will not accept that either. he came to the power of democracy will so we don't accept that power-sharing and the other to participate with him and this is the principal of

the democracy we have to accept the other of the power-sharing and the country will not killed by one and the culture and democracy in the arab world and the muslim-led we are not ready for this culture now. >> not ready in the muslim world? >> perhaps it is a good idea to explain why we disagree. >> with the defense in the arab world happening now and the new arab supreme is not lowering everywhere the two misperceptions that have shaped the understanding of a lot of people in the western part of the world about the arab world have come to the floor.

one is the use centralism and let me explain what i mean by these. orientalism is what you just said it's not ready for democracy, they tend to -- >> i just want to point out what was said. i'm just rephrasing the question. >> i'm not referring to you but that is the mind set between the thinking which is still out there because you see my concern is the revolution in tunisia and egypt happened so quickly now people want to see results as quickly now, this state in egypt in the timber i think it would have the general election of the presidential election and tunisian has announced a timetable yet but they will probably have elections in the fall as well and people like to see immediate outcome the immediate transition to a full, fully functioning democracy they would consider this first

election as a transitional period. first will not bring instant democracy to this country because after three or four decades of civil it's not easy to transform this political structure to democracy overnight. you will need more political formation and parties and balances of power and a lot of hustle and different political groups. that needs to -- that is an experienced people need to have, but what i mean by orientalism is that for some reason the arab world, the muslim world who isn't really for dhaka see because the starkly there is a tribal ties, mentality etc., it doesn't really allow them to have a fully functioning democracy. i think we have seen very clearly prevented the development of the space institutions and most of the muslim and arab country over the last half a century or so. it wasn't the demand of the people it wasn't the culture

over the last three or four decades the forces of democracy, opposition have come from all kinds of different corners of the societies including the so-called islamists in the arab world and other places. .. spreads to the rest of the world. you have a long history of the of islamic civilization but it was only a long footnote to what the greeks had produced and it was picked up again.

so it is a narrative that is still permeating our conceptions about as i said culture, history etc.. that needs to change from our textbooks to the way the design, our policies, our projects, our partnerships and that we have to acknowledge the fact that there are other equal partners around the world and they will have to respect this on equal footing. >> i want to try to focus this, take the west out of it if we can for a little bit. let me just ask ambassador fahmy. everyone talks about the turkey model. is there a turkey model and what do you think egypt, what do you think that is and what do you think egypt would want to emulate or draw from lessons from that and what not perhaps to have? >> it depends on which phase of the turkey model we are talking

about. the turkey model evolved over the years and maturity. but it also went through some difficult steps as they evolve into a full democracy where they accepted the different points of view. including for example where exactly or how do you exercise the religious parties. there is also always reference when you talk about the turkey model of the role of the military and safeguarding the estate or the tenets of the state. that serves turkey well. if i look at where i would like to see egypt moving, frankly, we will have to define a role of religion in politics. >> the role of what? >> religion and politics. that we are comfortable with, and it will be somewhere to the

left or to the right of the turkish model. what i would like to see, frankly, i would like to see in egypt that when we set this up and exercise it up early, and agree with -- simply establishing the institution is not enough to exercise them once or twice to prove this is working. i don't want to have the role of the military. i don't want to institutionalize that role. i want them to go back to the barracks and play the role as a special army. and only resorting to in real circumstances where likely had recently, they were in the barracks. they were asked by the population to come out. they didn't come out and say we are going to leave his role to be the link between past and the future. so i would not want to see that as part of the future, but i respect the turkish model as it

evolves. the experience we should learn from consequentially gaining from parts of it in trying to not repeat other parts of it. >> you think there is a tricky model and what does it mean? >> i would say that in terms of the model, there is a lot to learn from every democracy in the muslim world, including from turkey. which has been successful in sanctioning the democracy going through evolution as ambassador fahmy mentioned. first of all, there are lessons for the west as well. i will get into the lessons. >> i'm sorry.

i'm just having a bad night. go ahead. i know i have interviewed you. go ahead. >> in afghanistan, we started out on the right foot to begin with in 2011. in the agreement, which was signed between different groups, it was anticipated that we have a constitution at certain times, timetables. we have presidential elections. we have parliamentary elections but at the same time, where we are today, it means that we are damaging that foundation, that shaky foundation that we have laid at the beginning because the leadership doesn't believe in democracy. so there is one lesson for all of the muslim world and non- muslim world that in the

first phases of nation-building and the state-building, when the leader or leaders of that country do not believe in the principles and values of democracy artificially it will be difficult. ever else today, even the leaders believe in reform and progress and they are not looking forward to digging into their own ideas. they have started talking about afghanistan and unfortunately there is a sort of a reverse so that is the unfortunate situation in our country. looking into the modern, turkish model, the ruling party before the cabinet to power, what they were doing, they started with --

apart from their political ideas which is deliver your services to the people in a lot more grassroots work and they found their place among the society in the grassroots and that of course their leadership also evolved in the course of time, and then they found their place among the society. what could be learned from the situation in egypt and elsewhere, that is also very telling. in the same way that democratic forces evolved in egypt. they didn't jump into the -- as there was an opportunity, so they saw the change.

they were witness to the change and they adopted themselves -- adapted themselves. taking into account the transitions and circumstances of the country and the nation and diversity of societies which one can learn from different models. >> mr. tayfour how do you feel about this, about the turkish model? >> i think the turkish model, this model of democracy in the region and the turkish want to improve. we know that in turkey, now the islamic run the country, but they are a combination of modern islam, not like what we have in

iran or other countries. in turkey, they conflict on how to improve their economy. they conflict on how to build their country. their military are independent. they don't interfere in their politics. only to protect their constitution and to keep their country unified to defend their nation, and the other countries we find the military -- they defend their political party of their president or of their prime minister.

so, the turkish model i think, if we can do it, for example in iraq it will be a very good model for us. >> led me get to the issue of the role of islam in building democracy. is something secretary clinton said last night about how important inclusion is and i am paraphrasing her here, but that really you can't have a functioning democracy without including, and she was talking about women in different minorities, but she seems to be also talking about different groups within the muslim majority. is she right? dr. kalin is she right about that and if so, can that the war at least with some strains of thinking within the more conservative religious community

about to what degree the state should be involved in enforcing a kind of are there religious code within the law or more, kind of conformity? >> the question of pearlism and including different points of view in the political process have been part and parcel of the muslim tradition if you look at the muslim tradition as it has evolved from the eighth and ninth century to the modern period. but it has obviously displayed different qualities and at different times. but some of this basic quality, basic principles of democracy including plural democracy that we are talking about have been enshrined also in islamic tradition. the islamic tradition. these values that you know are other panelists mentioned, rule of law, transparency, accountability, justice, these are not alien to the islamic

tradition. when you talk about this and arabic and turkish and persian, they immediately resonate with a much deeper and longer historical and religious connotation. for example, putting in checks and balances in the system. who controls the rulers? and being fair and just in your action. when you have power how do you exercise that power? who are you responsible to in the exercise of that power all the way from gods to your fellow citizens etc.. you know they are part and parcel of the islamic tradition that their religious theological level. and the spirit of cosmopolitan islam if i may use such a term has been lost in the modern period starting from the 19th century because modernity. >> what do you mean by cosmopolitan islam? >> cosmopolitan is that

inclusive vision of islam that does not see different threats, that considers diversity as a blessing from god and the sayings of the profits and has been repeated by many scholars and have been developed. even if you look at some of the key texts of the islamic political history for example, his model of a virtuous society. it talks about this, how the different communities, religious and political and social communities etc. come together to establish this virtuous society. the main point is not about the state. it is about the society. is not about grabbing power from the state. it is really educating, training, empowering a society that will have the values of virtue, respect, inclusion and diversity.

and that spirit unfortunately has been lost. under the heading pressure of 19th century experience that islam has, vis-à-vis the western route because modernity most of the time the 19th century came to the muslim world coupled with european colonialism. and people reacted to it immediately. the legacy of colonialism or the memory of colonialism has remained wary strong in the background of the muslim community and the people in the west tend to forget that. for them, european colonialism ended in 1914 or 1918 by continued in fact for some it still continues in the case of the palestine issue. >> if anyone of you want to jump in and just a moment just go like that. >> what i wanted to say was, for any religion, if we interpret their religion in an exclusive

fashion at the expense of othern will not be a democratic interpretation. it is consistent with what we all want to achieve as democratic nations. but it is not because one says that we are a muslim nation or a christian nation or a jewish nation that we have been unfairly democratic. >> every religion has that strain in it. >> i should take you back to the egyptian experience. first of all we actually had a -- before the revolution but it was not all the people. it was to be and sedition democratic at all the way back to the 1920s, we had a constitution which actually had preference that islam was originally a state which was much longer than the constitution in 1971. but that constitution in the 20s was much longer in terms of the liberal value and

democratic values than the 150 years later. so while the language about religion was stronger, it was not inclusive. at the same time the constitution was providing equal rights for everybody in the country whether they were muslim or not. so we have to be careful. is not the muslim world or democracy. it is do we have democratic value? are reapplying them are not? ice firmly believe it is not about religion it is how we interpret religion. >> will but what about this question about inclusion and diversity nurses a kind of exclusivity? i mean what are the challenges and a the task are there of you two cosmopolitan but does not see diversity is a threat? what are the challenges to that and how do you overcome them? speeding when it is let's say involved in daily politics or

politics of a country and when the leaders of a country play politics rather than show leadership, then of course they see it in their interest to use these differences in order to strengthen their power base. that is their perception, but that is exactly the way to weaken the real power base which is if you are considering the people as a social power. so it is unfair that we lose sight of the richness which is and they diversity, and that is the for the political leaders sometimes to use it in their favor as they see it, as they calculate it while they are using it, but meanwhile, what they are losing is the trust of

the people and the trust of the nation over such politics and such gains. >> this discussion is getting too serious. >> a little levity? >> i want to tell a joke that will maybe shed some light on some of the dynamics in the islamic tradition. sometimes people have this perception that since islam is a monotheistic religion its policy, the politics is also monotheistic meaning it turns easily into monotheistic politics and everything revolves around the idea of unity of god and therefore respond to politics is bound to be monolithic. we have seen this kind of reading of the islamic tradition. it is funny, i mean it couldn't be far from the truth. if you look at the islamic experience, the experience of islamic society with diversity

and pluralism it has been remarkable. in egypt and iraq and many other places, it was the critical -- in the tenth and 11th centuries. some of the greatest scholars translators, scientists were muslim, christian and jewish and they really created this cosmopolitan culture there together in afghanistan and many other parts of the muslim world. but what is funny is that according to the story, muslims of india one-day meet christian missionaries and after some conversations with them they say well you know we support your work in india. suddenly they say how can muslim support christian missionaries in india? no, no, no you are doing a wonderful job and we encourage you to continue work in india and one day they ask, why? well you know you are trying to, you are working in indian

society where there are billions of gods and they were trying to bring them from 1 million to three. from three-to-one is easier. [laughter] of course in the daily lives of people it works in a different way, but the point is that the muslim world needs to recover that spirit of cosmopolitan islam and i think you are saying, you are seeing some good signs across the muslim world. >> do you agree that is an essential ingredient in building a functioning democracy? >> i think the diversity, they use it properly, it is a very good enrichment for society. in our country, sometimes they use this diversity and minority to abuse the system. so, we see in some countries

they have brought some minorities to their power. they give them power and then they marginalize their majority to protect their president or the government. >> can you give us an example of what you are speaking of? >> the there are many examples. i don't want to mention examples but what we have in iraq. >> this is off the record, isn't it? >> democracy. >> but what we have in iraq for example, we have i think 14 minorities and religions. all the people are integrated and involved in the politics. but, there is some marginalization, some dynamic of

democracy in the name of the new system so they don't give them the real world to participate in the power, to build a country. so this is the abuse of the democracy for the minority's. >> what about the inclusion of women? that was another one of her major points last night, that really in this global economic times in which we live, you cannot have a successful, robust democracy without economic growth and he you really can't have that by 50% of your population being not fully educated and if they wish to, fully engaged professionally. do you think she is right, or is that kind of a western value? >> i think she is right, but how to achieve it, that is what

depends on the conditions of each country. and you cannot expect every country to act in the same pace, but didn't deny this as a principle, to reject this as a principle, it will be wrong from its foundation. unfortunately, that i think in the third world and in the muslim world -- we are all lagging behind and whatever the type of regime. the women's participation in political life in the society, education and every field of life. we are lagging behind. we are falling behind where we ought to be and this should be considered as one of the reasons for the backwardness and not utilizing the potentials which

are there. and there is no doubt that there are many types of approaches toward this. one is the artificial. just only in order to -- some regimes resort to this on order to please, they do a few token things as a symbol of women's rights, while masses of women population especially in rural asia, they live as they live and nothing changes in their lives. so a sort of indigenous effort in empowering women and giving them the opportunities and providing the opportunities and bringing women together and aching them part of that engine of change in this society.

that is the fundamental ingredient for development in any country, muslim and non-muslim. >> but it can be a struggle in some more conservative societies, candid? >> absolutely. absolutely. it will be faced with resistance from the religious conservative corners. the traditionalists will use it as a tool against any type of drug rest. and without going on too long in this respect, i read one of the letters from the king of afghanistan in the 1920s, and his problem of opening a school in kandahar is more or less the same as today's government in afghanistan, of keeping a school

open in kandahar. so you see, how difficult bringing these changes are and how slow the pace of change has been in some parts of the world. >> mr. tayfour what about in iraq? when i was there i was struck as a first timer by how different different parts of the country feel. i think that most americans would be surprised. i mean if you are up in baghdad or ramadi it is one thing and if you are in najaf it is quite a different feel, including the role of women, the participation of women. why do you think that is really an important battle to be fought now? secretary clinton seems to be saying it is, or not? let's just leave it at that. to you and if so how do you do any of different regions in the country who clearly see it very

differently? >> the women in iraq, they are suffering too much and the new iraq now we have women for example in the parliament. they have 25% from the parliament for the women. but unfortunately, they don't have a role in the government. the political leader, they don't give them any real role to play in iraq. >> the token as dr. bellow was speaking of. >> this is the marginalization for almost 55 persons from the people in iraq. why? because political process in

iraq are not mature yet. they don't recognize the capacity of the women. they don't recognize the partnership, so i think when i say we are not ready for democracy because in the end, they go back to what they want to do, not on the democratic way. we find for example in iraq, there is one political -- they win the election but they form the government so what is the democracy? if we believe the democratic russ is we have to respect the results of the election. so we find one group wins the election but the other group, because they have the power, they have the tools, they stop

them to form the government and there was no one from their congressional community saying this is not acceptable. you have to respect the democracy. >> hard to believe that we are getting close in one way. i want to go to the topic of what the west can do to help but in while people ask -- i will tell you what. let's go to questions from minute. go ahead. right here in the microphone will follow you. if you could state your name and who you are with and then i've been urged to say i am sure you have something on to say that please phrase it as a question. >> okay. i would like to ask first dr. kalin and if anyone else would like to jump in. even though the panelists touched on the role of religion in the muslim countries, i want to press on secularism first and

mr. kalin how vital is secularism for your administration going forward? and second, if you are a religious scholar, you have studied the culture in this perspective. how do you think that secularism is compatible with islam in general? i know this is a long question that you may be able to break up a little bit because he not the beginning of islam there was no secularism and that makes a big difference when you compare it with this. the last one is, we talk about turkey's role. again in the same context in secularism how do you think secularism would be part of this turkish role, if not now, going forward how realistic is it to

take this secularism part of it? >> thank you. what i think i'm going to do is we did before us have two or three questions and then have the panelists answer, so the gentle and right behind you. yes, the gentleman behind you. >> yes, good afternoon. my name is yusuf. >> and you are from? >> i'm a native washingtonian. >> no, no are you just hear on your own? >> yes. >> i'm sorry. >> the muslim community. >> icy, thank you. >> basically speaking in the context of the cosmopolitan islam or minority groups, speaking of a minority group, as a voice representing about 50% of the muslim population in america, which is the black american muslims, and also a native of washington d.c. here in the washington d.c. area, how do we, the u.s., speaking of the u.s. islamic relations, how do

we as the u.s. reconcile sending a message of freedom, justice throughout not just libya but the muslim world in general, and not have voting rights here in the washington d.c. area? among the citizens of washington d.c.? thank you. >> thank you. [applause] do we have a third question to go in this round? this young man right here. and then you walk in kind of pick and choose. >> hi, i am a student at american university, a volunteer here. my question goes to anyone on the panel and it comes to the issue of cosmopolitan islam. with the distinguished gentleman on the board be willing to humor the idea that the problem is not so much in modernizing islam so much as organizing the way that we look at islam.

for instance i remember the gentleman over here nabil fahmy brought forward the idea that in the west, the way we developed democracy with secularism, that was separate from the states but i would make the argument that it actually wasn't. was simply revolution in the way we look to god. c. without the writings of jefferson and everyone and these constant allusions to natural law. they simply changed the idea. so i would say, with the people on the board agreed that the idea and the problem is that the way that we look at islam is something centered and the culture of the middle east, where whereas they mean just for instant on this board, we have no one from the four largest muslim populations in the world, india, bangladesh, pakistan and indonesia. this is a board centered in the culture of the middle east and like imam faisal road from the ground zero is lawmaker center said at american university just a few months ago the problem now today is that muslims worship

islam over worshiping god. >> there is a lot in those questions, and who would like to go first? speier response to the first question about secularism, there are two meanings or definitions of secularism. one is what you might call institutional, secularism or procedural secularism and the other one is the kind of substantial secularism is a worldview, as a way of life. in the first case, separating the institutions of religion from the institutional politics and protecting their rights, the religious rights of all groups or nonreligious writes about rubes and keeping the state an equal distance from all belief, that is the definition of secularism that has been widely accepted in various muslim countries and also in the

anglo-american form of secularism. whereas secularism is a worldview, as an ideology, as an identity, that is also something people can choose freely, obviously for themselves. the trouble or the problem is, when a state against a lamppost at ideology upon its citizens in the name of modernity, in the name of development, in the name of national unity, in the name of national security as it happened in our country in turkey for many years. secularism was used as a smokescreen for a number of other things. when things didn't go well, when those in power didn't run the state well. they just simply failed in delivering services to the people etc.. they immediately raised the flag of oka secularism is the most important value we have etc.. that's fine, let's have a discussion about secularism but when he were failing to run a country and you were failing to respond to the demands of the

people, when you keep plodding a military coup one after another in the name of again protecting secular democracy in turkey, then i think now it is happening over the last decade or so so people began to question the credentials of your claims about detecting secularism. in the case of turkey, from now on, how that will work out in turkish democracy. i think for turkey and turkish society is a process of maturity or maturing as a whole with the values of diversity and cosmopolitan islam. for examples in the things we consider to be taboo for many years and turkey, non-muslim minorities and women's rights and human rights etc., now we have a very free, vibrant, open debate about these issues. if you look at his who is really opposing these debates, who is supposed for examples to giving more religious rights to

religious minorities in turkey were to recognizing the rights of the kurds to practice their culture or similar issues, it is not a conservative religious communities of turkey. it is a new breed of nationalism that has emerged in turkey, which very much allies itself with the establishment and turkey and they are opposed not only to this but to turkey's new membership and a number of other initiatives which make turkey in fact an attractive model or example. and it regards to washington voting rights i fully support you, my brother. >> let me quickly address a couple of the points. first of all, i wouldn't waste much time on the discussion of secularism and democracy in the middle east or if you want, the muslim world. i say this because it is not again about islam.

let's take israel. everybody is saying it is the first or the only democracy in the middle east. it is not secular. and if you try to take the definition of secularism as applied in your comment is not going to be applied anywhere in the middle east and north africa at least anytime soon because of the very important role of religion in our society. that is not the problem. the problem is our problem. we need to, as muslims, need to continue to revisit our religion and continue to interpret our religion they fully in a macroperspective looking toward the future. there is a question about whether the problem was how you look at us and whether or not. first of all there's a problem about how you look at us. two quick examples.

you keep talking about arab springs. talk about arab summers. springs are short and if you want to see if you need a much longer period of time. so that is just one example. the other example is the idea that women throughout the arab world or the muslim world can play a prominent role. you mentioned -- you haven't had one in america but you have had fun and large countries. it hasn't happened in my country, at least not in contemporary history. so these problem exist in different parts of the muslim world. but it is not really only a function of a faith. muslim countries will interpret their faith more liberally in certain areas than in others because of the history around their own culture. so, yes, think muslim women should be given more rights. women in egypt got their voting

rights before switzerland but without a doubt they have had a lot of rights curtailed in the second half of the first century and we are trying to give them back to them. we as muslims have to rethink our own religion and a more progressive sense. >> is anyone else dying to jump in here or do we have another question? we have two other questions. we are approaching the red zone here on my clock. there to people right at this table i think. if you would just keep your hands up. thank you. >> i was somewhat surprised. >> state your name. >> steven coll university of maryland program on international policy attitudes. i was somewhat surprised by the sense of a kind of persistence to the idea that there is something unique about islam and democracy or as an islamic form of democracy. there are in numerous constitutions, there is

reference to sharia as the basis of law and while in a purely liberal democracy, the will of the people is entirely the source of law. there is no question that in the islamic world there is very strong interest in the notion of the will of the people as a basis for law as well. and i think there is an impression there is tension between these ideas of sharia as a basis of law which doesn't mean that they are incompatible but there is a process that is going on and to say that there is no difference when it really spells out quite clearly in the constitution that there is something unique here about the way democracy plays out in an islamic context. so i'm just curious why you sort of deflect that as a proposition rather than sort of embracing it

as something that is actually going on as a process in the societies? >> a great question. >> salam with the muslim public affairs council. i think also there are so many issues that have no consensus in the muslim world. for example there is no consensus on what an islamic state is. i mean if you go to iran it is one version. it is a form of a theocracy that even as one of our panelists said, if you look at more the cosmopolitan aspects of islam whereas i would call it religious pluralism within islam, the religious pluralist and iran are against the theocrat in iran, so there is an internal struggle over what the definition of us an islamic state is an definitely if you go to pakistan and saudi arabia in so many other countries that claim to be an islamic republic or an islamic state there is no consensus on what that means.

so adding onto my colleagues question, there is a lot more to be involved in the discourse i think, and so how do we get to the point where we heed the will of the people and when i say we, not only the rulers in the middle east but we here in the west as the primary factor for what kind of governance that people want? and i think if we approach it that way, then that will meet the goals of the people. it will fulfill these religious obligations because as was stated before, the islamic legacy is one of egalitarianism, of shura which means consultation itch means literally it means voting and so many other things. and then finally, you know the whole premise of whether we can have democracy in the muslim world is so artificial because

the alternative is, does that mean that islam accepts dictatorship when in fact dictatorships have the strongest opposition from islamic groups? so how do we get to understanding the region from the west and it leads to the final point, do you believe then that president obama and his administration is navigating through this political minefield effectively in dealing with all these issues while at the same time negotiating geopolitical interests with the will of the people of the muslim world? >> i should have imposed the rule that the white house tries to. those are great questions. i would like everyone, to hear from all the panelists and following up on that last question about the united states, just throw in the thing that i promised canned i wouldn't bet get short shrift and i'm sorry, but it is secretary clintons promise that says the u.s. and the west want to help partner and assist but

not impose. so what is the one thing that you think the united states and the european countries and other countries who want to assist can do? that is a lot. now adding a question to everyone of those questions. do you want to go first? >> looking at the islamic claws and avoiding stereotyping and old judgment, that opens the way for learning more and understanding more about what the islamic world is and there is no doubt that not only in the islamic world but also within the islamic country majority muslim countries, their art diversities of ideas. >> is that your answer? he is saying why is there an unwillingness to acknowledge if

i'm summing up your question, which is that there is a sort of tension? >> exactly in regard to the question of sharia, their countries which have risen about these and in different institutions they have addressed the democratic system, the principles of a democratic system as if it has been required and this is not an impediment in that. there are not preferences, but when i mentioned at the beginning briefly that the role of islam cannot be denied, whether it is part of its jurisdiction or --. >> would you like to take any of these questions? no.

[laughter] >> again i think we are mixing two different issues. is there a problem that has to be addressed in the muslim moral to get democratic systems working effectively and is there a constitution between islam as a religion and democracy? i challenge that there is a confliction between democracy and islam. i said openly we need, as a model community, to revisit our own thinking and see how our communities can be faithful to the religion and consequently in a more modern fashion to be consistent with the tenets of democracy. if you look at different models of countries you will see reference to sharia in a different fashion. if you look at egypt for example, the reference there it is the principle of islam, not the actual language. why is that? because we have a 10% minority

of christians which cannot apply that directly. to the question about america, well, first of all, the reason you are having so much difficulty with this issue of islam, because our issues is we only started looking at it -- so your interest in islam is from a negative.. understandably it is a function of what happened on 9/11 and you try to find out the answers of 9/11 in islam. it is understandable but you are not going to find the answers that way. what you can do however, nobody will listen to you talking about our old faith. you want to make an investment that will serve us and serve you it is education of youth. that is really the essence of using whatever your faith is in

a modern fashion and a more democratic fashion. capacity building, education of youth. >> mr. kalin. >> there again i agree with the ambassador on two levels of this discussion. one is the theological religious debate we can have in the and the other is the policy level. and that is a healthy debate that the muslim world should have about the different models of running a government, reconciling it with islamic principles, sharia etc. because again islamic history is so rich in its different possibilities. if you look at different political orders that have developed over the centuries, the medina and model is not exactly the same as the salton and different from the persian tradition. it is interesting the conqueror of istanbul had four titles which he probably carried

throughout his life. he said he was a hawk on which refers to the turkish political history or turkish political culture beneath a ruler in turkish and he said i may salton referring to the eric -- arabic for lyrical tradition but also the leader of my air of subjects. he himself also a shawl which in persian music and the ruler of rulers, referring to his person subjects and most strikingly he said i'm also the caesar. he said i'm i am the caesar of rome, referring to his christian subjects, non-muslim subjects. it is a contradiction in that vision. from that to 19th century organization, you have an interesting example, a variety of clinical orders and i think the muslim world in the 21st century will now have to

experiment. as i said at the beginning democracy is a work in progress. democracies are working on their democracies on various aspects of democracy. therefore we'll have a similar debate in the muslim world but as far as policies are concerned, there are lots of practical issues we have to address. the question of a woman for example, yes maybe some more narrowminded conservative understanding of religion has a role or is responsible for the lesser roles that a woman plays in muslim countries. there are also others -- biggert problems. i will give an example from turkey. a woman in and a rural area in turkey -- i am wrapping up for you. [laughter] thank you. are much more actively involved in social life of their own

immediate environment and they have migrate to urban centers, to big cities. suddenly their social agency diminishes and the reason is that, at least in turkey, our urban centers have developed so badly, no planning, no strategic thinking about how 10 million people for example will live in one city, what kind of provisions we will have to make for them. and suddenly the sense of insecurity dominates their choices and those same women who used to work and be part of the social economic life in in the rural setting suddenly goes home and never leaves the home, because that is a safe place for them. religion has nothing to do with this. i mean it is our urban policy and our policies of development. some of these issues i think are out there again and are very practical issues for all of the countries that we are talking about. >> we are going to have to leave it there. i won to thank our panelists,

ahmed bin abdullah al-mahmoud, nabil fahmy, ibrahim kalin, thank you. [applause] speeches three click program notes about tomorrow. first, the working groups begin at 9:45. at 11:00, we have a terrific plenary on the rule of it the media moderated by david gregory immediately followed by a luncheon where we will bring together the whole procedure of the form and you are working groups. [applause] ♪ [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> now a discussion on the muslim brotherhood and political unrest in the arab world. house intelligence subcommittee examines the groups influence in egypt and the rest of the middle east. founded in 1928, the muslim brotherhood is the oldest and largest islamic political group. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon and welcome. the house select committee on intelligence, subcommittee on terrorism, human intelligence analysis and counterintelligence will come to order. the first order of business is to welcome my ranking member, mike thompson and the other members of the subcommittee and those from the full committee who have joined us today. mike thompson is a good friend, and like the chairman and ranking member of the full

committee, mike and i are committed to working in a bipartisan fashion on the subcommittee whenever possible. we met recently to discuss the way ahead for the subcommittee and as a result, we have a robust bipartisan plan for oversight in the areas of the subcommittee broad jurisdiction. today we are having an open hearing on the muslim brotherhood. open hearings are rare for the house intelligence committee and the subcommittee's actually, the chairman rogers and i feel that this important issue should be discussed with the american people. as governments are shaken in the arab spring, intelligence agencies across the world are studying what kind of governments would follow in a new geopolitical landscape across the middle east. central to this discussion is the muslim brotherhood. founded in egypt in 1928, the muslim brotherhood was dedicated to implementing traditional islamic sharia law in opposition

to british imperial rule. an interesting debate has arisen regarding the role of the muslim brotherhood and what they might play in future governments. some assert that the muslim brotherhood has not renounced violence as a political means and any inclusion of the brotherhood would fundamentally undermine democratic movements and governments. due to confusion about the niche are and the degree of the threat from the muslim brotherhood, this topic deserves further exploration. the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the activities of the muslim brotherhood hope in the middle east and in the united states in an effort to clarify what this group aims to do and how it or sues those aims. i seek to encourage discourse about the muslim brotherhood to help assist analysts across the world who are struggling to understand what comes next in the middle east. additionally, this hearing will address how our government is and should be dealing with the muslim brotherhood.

much of the confusion surrounding the muslim brotherhood stands from its abandonment of violence. when the group declared that it would no longer use violence to achieve its goals, many in america and throughout the world ceased to view it as a threat of any kind. the group's apparent embrace of democracy is further convince him that it is a harmless organization that shares the freedom bent freedom loving values of much of the western world. however that depth of the brotherhood's commitment to violence is unclear. it may renounce violence as a means to gain power in egypt but don't forget it is the parent organization of the palestinian hamas which pledges its commitment to violence against israel and its founding charter. in addition the muslim brotherhood's most influential theologian, use of owl kara dolly has sanctioned attacks on american forces in iraq, endorsed palestine suicide bombings and recently proclaimed to wish to kill the jewish

before he you guys. .. and on long island. we must also look at the extremist ideology they espouse and whether it leads to the radicalization and ultimately acts of terrorism. my own view is some of the

changes in the muslim brotherhood are merely superficial. their abandonment of violence is arguably for tactical reasons and i suspect still opposed to the general pluralism and the protection of minority rights. for example, non-muslims and women are not afforded the same rights as muslim men under the way of thinking. we need to examine closely with their it is setting up a worldwide islamic regime still in place. the reported leader of the muslim brotherhood in egypt from 1996 until 2002 wrote that jihad or not always limited to the specific region of the islamic country since the muslim homeland is one and is now divided this is also a very important nature because the muslim brotherhood appears to be active in the u.s. although not in the traditional sense. there are no card bearing members of the croupier. there's no buildings on the case street that safe muslim brotherhood and the lobby

directory. instead the group spends residential to a large number of affiliated organizations throughout the country. this allows the muslim world read to muddy the waters when it comes to foreign funding and influence and hide behind groups that have plausible deniability of their involvement with when necessary. we know this because of the department of justice produced clear evidence in the 2008 holy land foundation trial. the largest ever some financial trial in american history which shows the muslim brotherhood is in america and outlined to the operates here. our witnesses today will be able to shed some light on the evidence produced in this trial and explain how the muslim brotherhood operates behind the scenes. the federal government doesn't have a comprehensive or consistent strategy for dealing with the muslim brevard and its affiliated groups in america nor does it have a strategy for dealing with the brotherhood in egypt or the greater middle

east. a lack of understanding about the group is led to a classic case of government disorientation. we heard the spectrum of the views on the approaches to the interaction with the brotherhood from various government officials. this inconsistency makes me feel like our government is playing checkers while the muslim brotherhood is playing chess. so i'd like to hear from the witnesses their views on what the government policy should be with regard to the brotherhood. we will clarify by hearing some of the preeminent expert on the group including a local muslim leader, scholar who wrote a book entitled the new muslim brotherhood in the west, two experts on the least affairs who returned from checks to egypt just days ago and i think him for being here i know that's tiring. and a professor who specializes in political science and international fares. we have a very balanced panel of witnesses sitting before ross two of whom were invited by the ranking member so that we can have a full discussion that

addresses all sides of the issue. one of the intelligence committees will ever given access to intelligence community personnel who provide us with classified information on matters of national security and as such i intend to follow on this hearing in the near future with a closed classified hearing on the muslim brotherhood to allow subcommittee members to hear from the executive branch with the government knows about this group and what it's doing to address this threat. my hope is that this hearing will provide congress with a better understanding of the muslim brotherhood sweet and ask the government officials and from questions about their policies and strategies towards muslim brotherhood and i'd like to invite my friend the ranking member to make an opening statement. senator correct we are friends and a trade relationship working together on these issues and

others and this is truly out of the ordinary to have an open hearing as the chair stated this committee and the entire time i've been on the intelligence committee this is the first subcommittee open hearing that i've participated in and i think the first one that we've had so i appreciate the chair effort to gather information and gather an understanding of some of the most for any issues we face today is a thing to for that, madam share. and welcome to all of the witnesses and thank you for taking the time to inform the subcommittee about your research and experience with a muslim brotherhood to have individuals to influence the events and countries important to the u.s. countries such as egypt. the muslim brotherhood is involved to some degree in reshaping the egyptian

government. for that reason this hearing could be productive it provides a fact based examination of the brotherhood activities objectives and potential to affect u.s. foreign will policy. however, just as important there are limits to what this hearing can or should accomplished. first and foremost, this hearing must not become a witch hunt, about the vast majority of egyptians and citizens who protested peacefully at the square. nor is this about the millions of the law abiding muslim americans who contribute to our american society. intelligence oversight has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional activities of americans who practice religion, attract others to the religion, participate in the political process or influence u.s. policy which by the way in washington and state legislatures and in

city halls across the country we call lobbying this shouldn't prove guilt by association. every organization has bad apples so we shouldn't judge an organization by only if you dismembers. my understanding is that since the muslim brotherhood has a large written record anyone can select statements to make the case for or against the organization. our experts can help us analyze the was statements and provide their assessment of the brotherhood's true intentions. third, today's hearing is not about terrorism. as a member of the intelligence committee, i certainly take very seriously our duty to protect our nation and counterterrorism. but let's be clear that the egyptian muslim brotherhood is not a state department designated for foreign terrorist organizations and according to the written testimony.

fourth this hearing is not an investigation into criminal what devotee. no one here speaks for the u.s. law enforcement or is a law enforcement officer. we may need to follow-up as the chair said with a closed hearing to find out if there are any muslim brotherhood related violations of u.s. law. today's open hearing is not that far. and finally i strongly believe that this hearing must not become yet another recruitment tool for extremists. experts in the field note that even in a free society individuals would be driven to violence if they feel victimized michael was nothing is said today that can be interpreted as targeting or victimizing anyone. i know that he also expressed the desire to have a serious discussion that doesn't offend any law-abiding citizen of our great country. i'm eager to work together to reach that goal by keeping this session with infirm parameters connected to the intelligence

oversight and again i appreciate the working relationships and your willingness to try to find out the important information that we know and i yield back. >> thank you. we will now turn to the witness' testimony. our first witness is the executive director of the washington institute for near east policy. as an expert on arab and islamic politics as well as u.s. middle east policy he's one of the foremost voice is on the mat on to the topics to the game in guest appearances on major news programs and regular contributions to major newspapers. moreover, he frequently travels to the middle east including a trip to egypt from which he returned earlier this week. thank you for being here and please, proceed with your five minute testimony. thank you madam chairman. it is a privilege to be allowed to present testimony to this subcommittee.

i have a formal presentation for the record to make some brief comments at this time. as you just know divided return from a fact-finding mission to egypt several days ago which included intensive discussions with a range of factors including members of the muslim brotherhood with your permission i will lead the discussion of muslim brotherhood inside the united states to my colleagues and focus on the situation in egypt first to procure a comment the muslim brotherhood madam chair doesn't occupy by itself the islamist space in egypt. the actual issue of islamist challenge to egyptian politics is even bigger than just the brotherhood itself. there are different movies to be a commitment from party some elements all along the spectrum in the egyptian politics today. the range on the most radical for the killers of sadat who were released from prison in

recent weeks and form their own political party. they include extremist sell fees' who never before recent events pleaded political role but are now actively engaged in politics. these are the people that have been burning the shrines and instead getting sicker and violence against the costs. as the muslim brotherhood and its own political party and there are some further liberal than the muslim brotherhood within the overall islamist free market. it's impossible at this early point to know how much these divisions matter and whether indeed the brotherhood is trying to create the appearance of political division to make themselves look more moderate and to some egyptians the depue of the brotherhood is that they are not as extreme as to say the killers of sinnott and when they would be reaping some of the - benefits of this perception when egyptian elections are held later this year. madam chairman i believe the concern of the brotherhood

potential emergence as a major player and even power broker in egypt is warranted. as i noted in a previous congressional testimony, the brotherhood is not as some people suggest it is it is not in the egyptian version of the marchant times. it isn't merely a social or humanitarian organization committed to improving the welfare of the egyptian people. it's a profound political organization that seeks to reorder egyptian and brought muslim society and a certain political direction. tactically believe the organization looks like a battle opportunities it is offered. has renounced its most ambitious goals and the violent means to achieve them in my view only as a result of the regime compulsion. not a free choice by the leaders of the organization themselves. should the brotherhood achieve political power it will almost certainly use the power to transform egypt into a very different place.

the best case he analogy would be turkey under its current leadership with a secular state gradually being islamist. a more realistic situation would seek deeper and more systematic islamist society including the potential for a frightening growth secretarianism between muslims and copps. and even deepening the enter muslim conflict between the saudis and the more peaceful brand of islam. it would be a mistake in my view for the united states to operate under the assumption that the brotherhood's the ascension to power is inevitable and such an assumption is dangerous and could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. if we look at the election results in 2005 and the recent referendum in egypt a majority of egyptian voters do not support the muslim brotherhood and there's reason to believe if given the right amount of support, organizational backing

and time, the non-islamist more liberal forces of egypt may triumph for the muslim brotherhood. still, it is important for washington to be vigilant about the brotherhood based on the words of islamist leaders and the experience of islamists in and another government and other countries and the implications of the brother of electoral success will be felt in numerous ways. from the social mores to the education policies and the regional policy would have particular impact on the peace with israel. in the recent weeks brotherhood leaders have been downplaying the previous statements calling for either abrogation of the treaty or a national referendum to determine whether egypt should continue to adhere to the treaty. now they say little more and this is an issue that the new space parliament should address. most likely that is because of the e egyptian military position on this issue.

in today's each of the this moment before the elections. however, in an islamist egypt, the future frigidity of egypt and israeli peace is likely to make the experience of the last couple of decades look positively warm and cozy this would have the practical effect of the policy towards, dhaka and egypt policing of sinai and sale of natural gas to israel, the continued operation of the qualified industrial zones between egypt and israel, and of course in all of these ways and more a more islamist egypt would have serious ramifications for a bilateral relationship. it's important for the united states to study lei balance between the one hand being alleged dangers of the brothers and its allies pose to the critical interest on the one

hand and between avoiding giving the brotherhood a political gift in the form of certain lightning rod statements or actions that could motivate voters who are otherwise opposed to the brother had message to come out and support the movement. privately we should be working with the supreme military council so that technical decisions are made and training and electoral process that doesn't inadvertently assist the brother of its political prospects. moreover, we should share with them information on the foreign funding especially the gulf funding of islamist groups, parties and movements with an audit insulating egypts space experiment from the various interests from outside parties that might be committed to a greater is solmization of egyptian society were generally i believe it is most important to be clear to the egyptians about the type of egypt with him we can have a firm partnership.

an open tolerant respectful democratic egypt, and egypt in which copps and muslims play an equal role in the shaping of the society. that's the egypt we can work within the egyptian voters should know that that is the tide of egypt that we want to be able to see at the end of their electoral process. thank you adam chair. he's an academic and security experts and currently a visiting fellow with the rand corporation who specializes in a solmization and political violence in europe and north america. he's the author of two books, the latest of which as i mentioned is called the muslim brotherhood in the west. i might also add he was supposed to be in europe today but changed his plans soon to be here and we appreciate every much. thank you for doing that and think your testimony and please

go ahead with your testimony. >> thank you. and members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me today. as we serve the development of the next month in egypt i think it is important to also take a broad perspective as you mention in your opening statement and analyze the global reach of the muslim brotherhood and putting here in america i would like to advise my testimony in three parts. first, i want to examine how the brotherhood operates here in the west. second, i want to discuss the goals and third, i want to provide it was a recommendation during power. today groups in more than 80 countries place their origins to the brotherhood and the adopted the various forms and tactics according to the environment which they operate to. this includes the west were most of the groupings created in the 1960's and 70's the brotherhood activists have evolved into some of the most visible muslim organizations in europe and north america. let me be clear it's incorrect to use the term muslim brotherhood in america if with

this expression we need the organization in the united states are controlled by the brotherhood in cairo of a monolithic hierarchical entity. yet it's fair to say that in the united states and in most western countries that our organizations that also independently operated have historical financial, personal organizational and ideological ties to the muslim brotherhood. today things to the combination of ideological flexibility and unrelenting activism, large funding and the organization of competing islamist movements for their organizations have gained significant influence. even if the membership remains small they've shown an enormous ability to monopolize the discourse and its position themselves at the forefront of the competition to be the main interlocutors of the western governments and the media. to my second point the goal of the organization from the brotherhood and the middle east

also the procedure the introduction of the sure villa in the west the western brothers of deeply pragmatic, and aware of what they can and cannot do. therefore they are elsewhere. foremost among them is serving as lummis identity of the muslims. a second goal is to be designated as the representatives of the muslim community. the brothers understand the relationship of the western elites could provide them with a financial and political capital that would allow them to significantly expand their influence inside the muslim community summit and the clever political calculation, they seek to be recognized by the western elites as representatives of the muslim community. so as to eventually obtain the same recommendation within the community itself. analysts are deeply divided and there is assumed the organization. they're simply a socially conservative force that accept democracy to cooperate with them

on various issues including terrorism and radicalization. d.c. a much more sinister agenda. and they argue that in the resources of most westerners the western brothers art in modern bass worse engaged in a sort of still subversion and weakening the society from within. intelligence agencies in europe tended to share the pessimistic view within the united states has elsewhere this know, this is not within the government. this dynamic is exemplified by the fbi relationship with terror here in the united states. the most visible and controversial among the u.s. based organization that traces the origins to brotherhood. some top fbi officials have publicly stated the goal is to, quote, further the agenda for radical islamist terrorist groups by providing political support in the court. others have publicly thanked them for a, come commitment to maintaining a dialogue leading to the frank and honest exchange of ideas and difficult.

this contradiction hardly limited to the fbi is the result of the combination of factors. but it's a. there's an understanding of the fbi that will care and some of its affiliates might not be the ideal partners the peerless seeking in region of the muslim community. they are a necessary one. the relationship wouldn't be more complex. the hearings chaired by the congressman king highlighted the story of the community leader was also ostracized by care for reaching out to the fbi to stop improvement but at the same time it's operated for the fbi and some terrorism cases by northern virginia residents who travel in 2009. about health policymakers deal with western brothers many pessimists for policies that would expose the brothers from engagement. one of this decision highlights

traveling aspects of the brothers agenda but need to be addressed such a position as a realistic and counterproductive. although the representative this are overblown both organizations to represent a cross-section of the community, talking only to the muslim leaders whose position is square with the government and pretending more confrontational voices do not exist isn't a constructive policy, and the brotherhood organization act of some of the law is one they provide financial support the group designated as has happened in the past the should be prosecuted. but since most of devotees are within the law they should be engaged. equally problematic is the approach with the brothers as a reliable partner. amol evidence shows that the aim of the brothers to the respond publicly. taking official action that would unnecessarily in power a handful of appointed leaders whose aims are at best seem naive. there is i would argue its third

more nuanced way. first, government should reach out a broad range of muslim organizations because the disability shouldn't be mace become a stake in diprete second engagement needs to be made on a firm understanding of the history, modus operandi and most important games of the brothers. finally, it is paramount to understand the difference between engagement and empowerment. establishing a permanent dialogue and even occasional limited funds of partnerships with most western brotherhood organization can produce some positive outcomes particularly in the security field but interesting them with powers is a counterproductive policy. crafted a coherent policy is not easy in particular because u.s.-based pratt of the organization's have been evolving in different ways and shouldn't be seen as a monolithic organization. but not on ideological pragmatic approach is needed to confront the largely unknown and figures extremely important reality.

i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. >> over next witness is dr. mann's for coming in the egyptian born islamic scholar and critic whose granted political asylum in the united states in 2002. because author 24 books and approximately 500 articles in arabic on the topics including what the sum and saudi arabia reform of the egyptian education and women's rights in the muslim world dr. mann's or is also the president of the international chronic center. fever being here to share in your point of view and i to please, proceed with your statement. let's begin. islam is a region of peace and tolerance and justice and

[inaudible] would muslims when the established the entire relate all its values and they are doing the invented social sharia contradict islam. after that, the west, mize and defeated muslims and to find a way they have to choose one of two ways. one way is to restore the past, so they want to restore the power for the set up empire, and this is what they've established

in 1745. the other choice left by egypt by the government known as mohammed fer egypt and muslims according to the western civilization, so there are two different ways modernization and it's destroyed that and 8018. the state's need egypt to survive, so the second would reestablish collapse it when the

current state established until he gets his name in 1932. it's a stubbles to egypt in three organizations to teach wahhabi is some under the name because he just hated and becomes it becomes wahhabi and [inaudible] and appointed him as the head of muslim brotherhood in 1928. that means the organization

created needs egypt to survive and this gives us -- it is the difference between muslim brothers, it is an organization that has its political agenda and they are considered a make up for the middle east and the people who concentrate about the mess and looking after to take over peacefully. ..

the muslim brother -- when bart came he posted so much and he executed us to some original piece and again we are -- when mubarak stepped down, used to

tune used for church. not that there appear becomes not opposed to themselves and filling the space that the future feature to have many meters, more than not you know, when the egyptian majority will

be a big problem. looking at what happened to sell it be will be uphill after all they have gone not only the middle east the american interest. going to america here, to know the difference between muslims. they have their own political agenda. and they will establish -- he belonged to the series that

dividing the war into two camps. he is working for the same agenda, which gallant to dividing the work into two camps. the camp of the muslim and they can't of recognition. so i am talking about their own innermost agenda. and they believe that the sino will become before it you today to see angels and they will attack the other camps so the need some people in the enemy camp to make the muslim community here in the u.s., so

they control most of the so-called schools to brainwash people, the muslim community here just like them. this is a big problem. i'm not talking about -- i have evidence now. i look at. this is the official translation made by the soldiers. official of the koran. not only in the main entrance tatian, but all of the in the foothills, 4 million copies of this transition in the united

states, i give you when something -- >> if you can make it very quick guess we have to go vote unfortunately. >> you know, as a muslim we say five prayers every day. and we have to guide us and jesus prays a christian and the rules that means anyone who believes in this translation and three times a day they are bringing brainwashed to look at

his fellow american has the enemy abroad and according to the sharia has to kill him. what about what should be done? and how do i suggest the american agent be in all of the ideas to make america and defend america to win muslim majority to defeat al qaeda. the >> for everybody to wreck together. >> thank you. >> thank you. when porsche have to go vote, so i hope you can be patient because they want to hear testimony and ask questions. we have for both come at one now which is almost over.

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> okay, we are ready. we'll move onto.are brown and then if you have any else, dr. trained to look to that later. i want to be sure we get

everyone in because we won't have us again, but we've got enough time that we should be fine for the rest of this hearing hopefully. let's move on to dr. brown,.professional at george washington university and the author of numerous books on your politics. he teaches courses on middle eastern politics as well as more general courses on comparison politics and international relationships. dr. brown, we appreciate your being here today. please go ahead. >> thank you very much madam chairman and members of the set many. thank you for inviting me to testify today on the muslim brotherhood. as an academic, i'm in part gratified to have the subject of my scholarly work deemed a critical national importance. i've been conducting research in the muslim brotherhood movement in various countries in the arab world for the past seven years and i'm happy to share my impressions with the committee. but if much of the night damage may go to admit it, the topic of my research is a bit less critical than meets the eye.

most brotherhood movements i think are far more political and diplomatic challenge than the security threat for the united states. more specifically, let me make three points today. first the brotherhood is not a violent organization apples place it operates. the brotherhood is telling the truth when it describes itself as peaceful movement. but it is truthful as well an exception in his mix at. in most countries the movement commission is very clear. a fix on the peaceful political change and reject science as a way of securing both in the rejection of violence is not a mere adjustment but deep strategic adjustment. however, the movement also regard violence as legitimate in cases of foreign occupation and brotherhood movements have therefore verbally executed violence against american targets in iran. in the israeli case from the various brotherhood have shared in what i have to describe as

the deplorable, even reprehensible failure to distinguish between military and civilian targets. ancient specifically the content of the muslim brotherhood movement on the egyptian israeli peace treaty has evolved but the brotherhood still is clearly verbally supportive of hamas. in the iraq case to mothers a strange ending the position of brotherhood movements against united dates because the iraqi political party list associated with the muslim brotherhood, iraq islamic party actually participated in sponsored efforts of reconstruction after two dozen priests of the brotherhood is certainly a monolithic organization. perhaps the best evidence of the strategic rejection of violence and domestic politics with the brotherhood's activity over the past generation in a chip. in mubarak's family history pression became so intense the brotherhood began to withdraw partially from the political scene in the league in the movement in little unprepared for the revolution when it occurred at the movement never embraced violence do not leave me to my second point. we shouldn't overestimate the

current brotherhood and let me let me restrict movements to egypt, which is the critical case in the 19 of the past of the various brotherhood movements. some see the brotherhood in egypt both internationally and domestically people harbor dark suspicions. this unification movement posted the links. taking advantage of any opportunity fortune secret alliances, tricking people missing payment to seize power and voting family begins. her reasons for concern about the brotherhood rice, but there's a reason for panic. one often hears that the brotherhood is poised to do well in elections because it is the best organized political force in the country. there is some truth to the statement, but we have to remember elections for the brotherhood performed best, parliamentary elections in 2005 for once in which the vast majority of egyptians simply stayed home. when the brotherhood pulled out all of his supporters to vote in election where most people didn't vote, it did not even try to win the majority work at a

have done so. in a more democratic system, where people are more politically engaged, there's every reason to brotherhood candidates to win seats, but most seasoned observers of each of considerate brother jordi unlikely, even if the movie thought in the movements to try different ones for yesterday that they will contest about a third. the brotherhood has been challenged by the current political atmosphere as much as any other political actor in the country. you have to figure when inscrutable military rulers have in mind. it has to maintain unity within its own ranks in a very new and challenging environment and has to find a short political footing that shifts daily. how should we react? icemaker point. we have no real policy towards the brotherhood. we wreck if only to brotherhood movement depending where they operate them with their local characteristics are. our policy toward islamist in kuwait is different from that in jordan, which is in turn

different from palestinian case. let me stick out when i seem to be in opposition here. i do not think we need a policy towards the brotherhood. the u.s. does need a policy towards where the brotherhood operates but we do not need a policy towards december 3rd any more than towards green parties, feminist movements. our differences with the brotherhood are often a product of different his own perceptions, prevent some priorities and they are best treated the level of relations between states and societies, not at the level of picking winners and losers in other countries domestic political scene. the policy question that's often post in washington in this regard is whether the u.s. should engage the muslim brotherhood. i've always been puzzled by formulating a question that way. discussions between diplomats on the one hand and leaders of various organizations on the other by means of gathering information enemies of the period the policy question is therefore not whether or not

engage the brotherhood. of course our diplomats to develop informative contacts with all political actors but that their job. such contacts are made to make sure the policy is better informed. in egypt and in several other states including jordan and morocco at an plea is not to the united states to decide who is included or excluded in which democratic structures might emerge. elections in the countries arranged in accordance with the law in place in the united states is unable to determine rules of entering into electoral politics. no political in the country pricing for disqualification of brotherhood is the political actor. the real impeachment question is whether various domestic local forces can teach each other in a peaceful and stable way that makes these countries reliable partners of the foreign security affairs. the best they could contribute to investigation has been making clear we are going to work with any legitimate leadership as we

expect other countries to work with our leaders and the policies emerged from her in the constitutional process he and institutions. have often been asked in several different arab countries, what is the american position on the brotherhood cleric cyrus had trouble answering the question because i'm not authorized to speak for the u.s. of america and i'm not sure i could even if i were authorized because the u.s. is a fairly diverse place. the answer is personal, not on behalf of my country, but in many ways with the american policy challenges, rest of the brotherhood will represent a headache for us. it does not represent cancer. we can live with that. thank you. >> thank you. by next week is just the assistant professor of public policy at harvard university, a political scientist and middle east specialist. as the church focuses on develop

and in countries that aren't free. he made the trip from boston to be here for which we are grateful. thank you very much and please go ahead. >> thank you very much, chairman myrick, ranking member thompson come and establishment of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today. as the chairman mention i'm public professor at harvard and have been studying the brotherhood for several years. ever my doctoral dissertation about the movement and consulted on the topic and currently finishing a book about the subject. i've interviewed many muslim brotherhood leaders and members in the middle east and outside the middle east and said the movements history and read widely in writing davis keith entries and ideologues. i want to use my five minutes to speak about the muslim brotherhood and post ibaraki chip. but before beginning, i do want to say chairman myrick i've watched two of your videos on the moose on brotherhood and i have two reactions to that. the first is i think you are

concerned with the muslim brotherhood will implement sharia law or further the cause here in the united states gives far too much credit to the brotherhood and not enough to our american culture and institutions, which i think is prudent durability in the face of all kinds of great challenges if communism was backed by a world superpower could make no dent in our armor, i hardly think the muslim brotherhood, which is an organization of popularity in the muslim world which is no great power behind it can. as a scholar, but also somebody who's lived in the middle east and the west, i know well what the islamists and what they have to offer and i think i can play it nothing on us. most muslim americans know this, too. that's why they voted with their feet and came here. i must tell you, chairman myrick am extremely gratified by the distinction you make in your videos between the muslim

brotherhood, which is a political movement and muslims who are followers of the world's second-largest anchor hammock faith. i'm thinking of the narrator in your video to distinguish between islamism, political ideology and the religion of which i am an imperfect but sincere follower. this is extremely welcome to me and many of my fellow american muslims who worry about being tired as columns in this country. this is important because there are people who want you to believe there is no distinction between islamism and islam. they are called islamists. i am very grateful to you for not doing their work for them and they only encourage you to continue making distinctions as loudly as possible to those who might wish to paint all american muslims have secret islamists will know they have no support on the chairman of the subcommittee of the house unintelligence. i am happy to talk about any points in response to questions,

but for the remainder of the time you want to focus on the brothers in egypt and the role in the coming period. silicone is scholarly research to answer five brief questions to you in my fellow americans may have about this movement. what the muslim brothers? what do they want? by the violence, committed to the nsa about to egypt? i may summarize this in the interest of time. what the muslim brothers? the religious and political movement that operates on a poor independent country. others have mentioned their history and the chairman interstate into that as well. and i'll skip the early history history and just tell you that in the current. for the last basically 35 years, with it the nod to participate in the egyptian political life is basically a cross between a religious fraternity and political party. the few candidates in every parliamentary election since 1984 except one in 2005 they want 20% if the legislature.

they're probably going to be illegal as soon. been outlawed in 1954 and in addition to running the elections they provide social services the extent to which the phenomenon exaggerated. what do they want quiet for another they want a more virtuous society and the legislation to make it happen. they believe government's role is to uphold the state and combat knives. so they got in the parliament, lift a ban and they've tried to in the past to be in novels and provocative programs but they don't restrict themselves to the moral thumb like most egyptians they want economic development or infrastructure, but they believe the way to get these things is through implementation of the teachings of islam. this is why their slogan is islam islam is the solution. whatever the problem is come islam is the solution. they been criticized by egyptians for not articulating how islam can offer solutions to

such problems as illiterate he come into brutality or water scarce be. internationally it is important to note one of the movement goals is achieving this community. this is something they paid a lot of lip service to. if you talk to some, they may tell you they would love to reestablish, but if you read what they read about the caliphate, they have in mind a kind of european union style federation that muslim states who joined voluntarily. it's not a kind of grand conquests enterprise. their critics of the west generally an united states in particular, both for our hegemony in the world, but also for our cultural values, which i think they find it odd as traditional ones. the muslim brothers are as likely to criticize america for things like our acceptance of homosexuality or sex outside of marriage for invasion into iraq and israel. are they a violent and committed to democracy?

you've mentioned this before. it is to muslim brotherhood to send a violent history in the 1940s. they had a secret apparatus that in 1948 assassinated egyptian prime minister but today's news and brothers will play the violence is in their path and they are committed today in the words of actually their former leader to seeking a peaceful alternation of power through the ballot box and framework of a constitutional parliamentary republic. others will come back and tell you all squashy's number two man was once a member of the muslim brotherhood. there's clearly a materially fair. it's important to note that zawahiri is viewed as having sold out in the brothers for their part to distinguish themselves from al qaeda whom they view as to start it nihilists. if you look at the muslim brotherhood's english-language website, vivisection called muslim brotherhood versus al

qaeda which has articles about distinction between these groups and criticism of planetary son. i would point you brought up stuff on the general brotherhood in early 2001 september 14, 2001, he signed in arabic statement condemning the attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon. father so some are on land because the statement is the founder of hamas. they've come through in record as being opposed to the great crime against our country. i will echo what professor brown says that because they do not share what terrorism is bigger likely to view hamas and hezbollah as acts of violence or legitimate to ask those resistance. i would only say your fit their view is actually not a fringe view in egyptian or arab society. it's not even held solely by

islamists and this is something we'll have to deal with in the middle east but i don't think it will prevent us from defending our friends are entries. i've written a whole book about muslim brotherhood and a only echo what my colleague said, which is if we look at their performance in 2005, they capture 20%, but the only god between 2.5 and 3 million egyptians to go and vote for them. out of 32 million eligible egyptian voters in upcoming parliamentary elections in september we expect much higher turnout than we have no way of knowing if these people had previously stay home would vote for islamists are not. so what if any of this leave us? i think it leaves us where we began. the hearing as a religious group and political party in a poor country. it is a particularly friendly to american power or culture or

come but neither is in a position to threat neither of those things. it has a vision for each of whom i consider retrograde, but claims to achieve the patient through the electoral process in so far behavior is earnest out. they've lost a lot of elections. whether the egyptian people will be reset to to the president's agenda is an open question, but with a lot of evidence egyptians have a wide range of political preference in affiliations and muslim brothers cannot claim to represent immaturity. we should be concerned with teaching the strength or threats of us in brotherhood and would help to ensure that each of sledging democratic institutions are healthy, durable and in front of her to any group that would subvert them. thank you very much. >> thank you, dr. masoud. i've always been very clear in making that distinction when i talk about that. i spent a lot of my time working

with under husbands who try to do the same thing in so i appreciate you mentioning that. i wanted to recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. roethlisberger for joining us. thank you. which like to say anything? [inaudible] >> well, we'll go to questions and i'll start bad game that has been discussed throughout the testimony. over the past several months, we've seen mixed messages from the brotherhood and at one point they said they wanted to scrap the egypt and israel peace treaty when they earned major global headlines, they said they would oppose the treaty and they also say they publicly support hamas. they said they want democracy and rights yet a recent associated press article dated the solve is the muslim brotherhood were discussing the

possibility of coordination in the upcoming elections. these are the same fallacies they rejected queries for women and minorities. in fact the same article says the fallacies in the chapter attacking christian and liquor stores, trying to impose their version of islamic law in provincial towns and a quote that. further, the brotherhood recently removed laws from the english-language website where it had explicitly stated it mission of establishing the islamic fatality. at same time, there goes establishing under islamic law permits posted on the arabic website. are we seeing the brotherhood of the west what they want to hear what reached another message to the people in egyptian history. do you think our government is taking it forward rather than looking at actions? how does this impact or intelligence analysis? her committee needs to know

that. >> thank you, madam chairman. as is one of most important questions about the muslim brotherhood. the brotherhood absolutely tries to be opportunistic and offer a different face to a different audiences. their sample evidence he needs identified a number of examples of this year the brotherhood has had his approach to politics for quite some time. when working with the mubarak regime was in its interest in the regime is your moment reached understandings that the brotherhood to operate social welfare organizations and places the government could not close reach. the brotherhood took advantage of the opportunity to extend political reach into those areas. what was clear after the tahrir square protests began, these are

the pro-settler youth who triggered it and put his finger to the wind and recognize this was an opportunity and it jumped right in and was an important player in bringing the protest to actual success. the brotherhood is extremely opportunistic, quite willing to engage in partnerships whether we fallacies fallacies or others to advance his political and social agendas. i think your point about the brotherhood's views on the peace treaty with israel is that they said in the testimony and absolute case in point. the brotherhood has lowered the level of tension on this issue because it knows that the military has been quite clear in setting acceptable yardsticks for deception indeed, because it doesn't want to trigger alarm bells in places like washington. my own experience over time this i believe that certain parts of our intelligence community have

had a fascination with the moves in brotherhood and like-minded groups, believing they represent quote authentic muslim political organizations in their countries and that non-islamist political movements, be they liberal or leftist or otherwise are not authentic, that they are somehow overly western in orientation and don't represent real arabs, muslims and the egyptians at the case may be. ..

this design year to find real arabs and muslims and to engage with. i think we should recognize what the political objectives are. we cannot have a policy which says no we won't deal with and egypt that has muslim brotherhood as part of the political system, that's a mistake but we should be quite clear about who they are, what they want and what their objectives are to change egypt and other countries in this part of the world. >> thank you. >> doctor i wanted to ask you about all holy land foundation trial. in that trial the federal prosecutors introduced hard evidence that the head organized presence in america a plan and structure to accomplish their

goals. it is spelled out in the 1991 document called the explanatory memorandum which was introduced which stated that the brotherhood a goal was, and i quote, a kind of grand jihadists and eliminating and destroying western civilization from within and sabotaging the hands of the the leaders so that it's eliminated and got a's religion is made victorious over all other religions, and of quote. the memo also listed 29 organizations working in the united states in the broader goals. several of the organizations are still in existence today. why should we have any expectation that this all came to an end when many of the same players are still active politically. if logic dictates the brotherhood goals and plans in america wouldn't have just disappeared so what is the nature of the muslim brotherhood in america today? does our government fully understand who these people and groups are and based on this document which states they want

to eliminate and destroy from within, what are some legitimate concerns we should have a presence and a plan in america? >> yeah, the document to mention doherty absolutely shocking and i think the memoranda that he mentioned, more some of the wiretaps of the fbi and evidence and the philadelphia meetings really show some dark features of the brotherhood in the u.s. and some of the groups that come from the sort of middle. one that you received the group's operating still today, some of them as you said mentioned in that memorandum have just gotten better and presenting a more moderate facade to the government in general. the realities still for the same ideology but just getting better not talking a good game. the counter argument to that is the organizations to change.

people change perspectives, the demographic change in some degree in the organizations meaning that a new generation of american foreign leaders have slowly taken the helm of this organization and there might be some change. we don't really know the answer to that. i think you might have different answers for different organizations. as i said in my testimony we shouldn't see this brother had u.s. monolithic. it makes sense to see some of the organizations mentioned as that line of thinking mentioned in a memorandum. some mothers have evolved the understanding of talking about a civilization of chehab or acted upon the civilization doesn't make a lot of sense. it doesn't make them necessarily what we would consider we talk about moderate muslims as much as the term is not liked by most people in the muslim community. we might not consider them as

such. they changed their views and their ways. how much does the government know, going to the second question about this development. as an outsider, an academic, i cannot claim to have full knowledge of what the u.s. government thinks and how they assess and engage in the organizations. my source educated guess having talked with a lot of people within the u.s. government is that no unified assessment, there is no unified engagement policy. it's very much to the change region the vegetables in the same agency you have amazing cases of controversy within same offices of semen departments, so the nature of each organization are not to engage. so it is quite problematic. i think to some degree that has to do with the nature of the organization that being mostly

political but operating under the veneer of the religious organizations an understandable reluctance of the u.s. government to investigate them or to look inside them because the separation of church and state is inappropriate for the agents of the government to look into the organizations unless they have hard evidence and legal one activities are taking place inside them. that creates a situation where i'm not sure that there is a widespread knowledge within the u.s. government about the nature of the organization and consequently how to do with it, how to engage them. it seems to be sort of oversimplified and the kind of black and white assessment. they are committing a crime like they are funding hamas than we investigated them. if they are not committing a crime, they are good and we should engage with them. there's probably some gray area, something in between which we might not be carrying out the

activities, nevertheless there might not be the partners the government is looking for, but with the exception, a lot of exceptions i think is lost in some quarters of the u.s. government. for the most part they have to stay out of a lot of the dynamics that it did with the muslim community and is not the u.s. government ought to get into this dynamic and between the brotherhood of the malaysian and other muslim organizations in the u.s.. i think what the u.s. government can do is avoid coming and we go back to my point, engage the power giving legitimacy to these organizations, treating them as the representative of the muslim community when they are not -- by doing that he can if given the incentive to the organization's with other organizations. 64. i have another question that i will go to mr. thompson.

>> thank you, madame chair. i'd like to begin with professor brown. professor, in your written testimony you state that there is a precious little evidence that the international organization of the muslim brotherhood seeks to establish a global islamic caliphate. you also state that suspicions of brotherhood movement statements are based on a poor understanding of how rall and ideological movements operate. could you tell us briefly, elaborate on those points but also tell us the resources and the sources that you used to reach those conclusions and then specifically why do you believe the brotherhood means what it says? >> certainly i will address both of those questions. i do research on the brotherhood

by meeting -- reading the documents and websites and reading their platforms and looking at the statements and then interviewing their leaders, interviewing some of the foot soldiers and interviewing people who left the organization sometimes split with the organization interviewing critics of the organization and interviewing scholars in the various countries that follow the organization. in terms of the caliphate there certainly are some foundational documents and texts for the brotherhood which to stress and a lot of this has to do with the brotherhood founded in the late 1920's. was right after the collapse of the ottoman empire and the end of the caliphate. that wasn't necessarily universally recognized but the last possible clement, so there was an issue then about muslim unity how can this possibly publicly expressed and the were all kind of ideas for coming forward. the broader goal was a matter

that will spell out, and when you look at the brotherhood tautological writing now the issue is simply reseeded in great importance. they never repudiated as far as i know. most ideological movements rarely say we used to be these ex but now we think that's wrong to just stop talking about something so that is something about how the tautological movements evil, but it is simply becoming something that is of secondary importance. >> the second statement to us about how was it that we know what we know about the brotherhood i think we can take their statements in one sense that we have to read them extremely carefully. let me explain what i mean. first in the first place the alternative is sometimes to say okay when the brotherhood says something we don't like that serious and that doesn't mean they are lobbying. that isn't a very good or scholarly methodology. another is to say i know what

they really think and if they say something contrary to that that only proves how devious they are. what i we have to realize about these movements is they are broad and they have all kinds of ideological tendencies within them and the way that they organize themselves to keep on the same page and the way that they talk to each other is often platform statements of right. what i look for when i'm reading the brotherhood of a lot of statements are two things. number one, is this an authoritative position of the movement, because people in the movement or to have their positions and they will tell you this is my personal position. so, i looked to see is this coming from somebody in an authoritative position, or they presenting it as a personal opinion or of the movement so that you have to look at that? the second thing is how specific

is it? and that is where you really get into the issue. sometimes it will be fairly vague and they are vague for all kind of reasons. sometimes they might be trying to please an interlocutor although i've met plenty of people in the muslim brotherhood who don't mind defending me and seemed to go out of their we doing so. so i'm not sure that is all that's going on there. often it's because the movement itself doesn't know and they get. tendencies in the movement itself city treat indigent and of the tape or of the differences with the general statements. i will give you just one very quick example on implementation of sure we get in egypt if you ask doherty for the application of sharia law there's no way they can remain a member of the brotherhood and say no. that is a useful question and answers a wide was a follow-up with the question and it tends to get very specific. which institutions we think egypt are authorized to speak in the name of the sharia. what do you think of, what is the brotherhood position on the jurors' rooms of the constitutional court on the

constitution we have to press them on the details and then you get much more revealing answers but when we see something authoritatively with some detail i think as they say that is a movement in the sense talking to itself and make up its own mind speaking authoritatively. >> professor mansour if the leadership provides a stronger force in egyptian policy-making what aspect is the greatest threat to the current u.s. foreign policy and how worried should the u.s. be? >> i think what i've been trying to say all along is that the brotherhood is not really in a position to was a slip to threaten american interests because after all it is a political party and a country that is very poor and in depending on the united states. of course the issue we would be the most concerned about is the issue of the peace between egypt

and israel and it's true the muslim brotherhood politicians have come out and made noises about wanting to resize the peace treaty as the chairman mentioned in her opening remarks. the thing the chairman did not mention however is that lots of other prominent egyptian politicians are saying very similar things. so this is not really an islamist position. he's well known to people fall in the egyptian seen and as a liberal egyptian who ran against mubarak in 2005 and was jailed by that regime the question last month actually came out and said that he would like to subject camp david to the popular referendum so there is the broad swath of the egyptian society to require the organization and i don't think that they would go for the lottery and what is also

forces us to keep in mind is that regardless of what the muslim brotherhood says or what he says ortiz of the people that get elected, their ability to actually make change on this particular issue, the issue of the piece of israel is limited because i think one of our colleagues mentioned early on, and i agree wholeheartedly the egyptian military will keep this as a very strong red line. there is no way that they would count in the democratically elected leaders coming near the piece of israel or threatening that in any way. so i really do not believe that the downside of muslim brotherhood and sentenced for the electoral process have anything to do with america's core national interest. they have much more to do with what egypt will look like and how egypt will be run and that is another set of questions. >> one final question. mr. satloff, dr. satloff, you mentioned in your testimony that you recently visited egypt and

that you said specifically you had an opportunity to speak to members of the cahal muslim brotherhood, and i'm interested to know how frequently were in contact with brotherhood members and how your most recent trip to the one you spoke about in your testimony, how your contact with brotherhood members this trip compares to the past context say five or ten years ago and do you see any change on the evolution? >> thank you, congressman. first, a brief comment. i do company with dr. masoud on the last question. >> i want to focus on this question. i appreciate that the we are limited to the amount of time we have. >> i've been following the brotherhood the last 30 years i wrote a doctoral dissertation on politics and jordan dealing with muslim brotherhood on hamas 1988 and fall when egypt for 23 years

i see the muslim brotherhood in egypt is doing that muslim parties do when they are poised to assert themselves which is that before elections they are moderating the words and after an election they often make terrible mistakes and he because they're so committed to their ideologies. when the muslim brotherhood party of jordan first achieved some political power and named ministers of education and other higher political office is come ideologies trump to everything else. in the countries that have huge of the pervvijze problems computer educational problems, the muslim brotherhood of jordan was to ban falters from attending the girls sporting events. the was the most important issue on the agenda for the minister of education. and in egypt, we can hear now very intelligent --

>> can you tell me how your contacts with brotherhood members in egypt various today? than fifer ten years ago when you had contact. >> the point is today as they are placed for political gain, the most recent conversations all sound much more cony event blight dinham conversations five for ten years ago and the experience and similar countries in the same similar moments in countries around the middle east is this is the moment when brotherhood petitions found the nicest the sweetest the latest because they are poised for political gain trying to reach the broadest political sport and the experience from other countries is that if indeed they achieve political game, and ideology does begin to trump

practicality, the pragmatism of appealing the voting public. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i applaud and thank the chairwoman for the statement it's important but today we are holding important to the to a hearing about a topic in a public forum of the chance of learning things enlightened about real threats is may be nonexistent because we will be talking about the effects today i would imagine life year we would do little to add our voices to the already buzzing chatter of the public opinion. when we decide to target the scrutiny by the committee and do it in a public forum in which little can be done about the exaggerated threats i believe the risk is becoming a little more than talking heads and to

entertain and inform more than to enlighten. in the form where the facts are limited we risk anyone who practices that. and intolerance can thrive. we create cable channels that might incite rather than understand. i believe it can be dangerous. we know that at self and a warrant or perceive intolerance, bigotry and prejudice against muslims in america are used as a recruiting tool by those who truly want to harm american. we know that our enemies at home any suggested by this of muslims is an opportunity to set the wheels in motion to the nation's and the people harm. i think that it is a practical reason for us to tread carefully when we study and analyze religion. like every member of the committee, like every american i want everyone to to with

absolute hundred% attention and dedication. that is the root of all the committee and we cannot compromise it. but an essential part of keeping american speeches using common sense and fairness when we examine information. we are not protecting america. we do not guard against the idea any active for faithful muslim who prioritizes the faith in their life is somehow a danger to america. i hope we will keep this in mind and understand who american muslims truly are. the ceo of the emergent solutions to mckeithen allen and syria may be some of our homes are muslim. the car that turns out to be the times square on and over to the authors of the threat is muslim. many of our servicemen and women are muslim including who receive a purple heart and was killed in iraq in 2007. he joined the armed forces after september 11th.

the majority of them are freedom loving american citizens just like the people in this room. they are american muslims and we should be proud of them. the devotion to the state, muslim, christian, jewish, any faith should be respected and indeed at mitered in america. i hope we keep this fact and for most of our mind every day and specifically. i would like to thank the panelists who believe because we received -- have any of you received in classified secrets, intelligence information from the cia, fbi or intelligence gathering organizations of the united states of america in preparation for the testimony today? >> that should be important how

we get through the intelligence and i believe we had one of the broadest intelligence gathering services in the world. do any of the panelists today believe that our intelligence services, any one of them has been so how could wind tore to old or duped by the -- the groups in egypt or here and specifically the muslim brotherhood? >> anyone, like the cia, the fbi? >> i wouldn't know if we had because i'm not privy to the reports. i've had conversations regularly with people in the community and i naturally usually pressed by the statistically control of the questions they ask their very

intelligence interlocutors. >> i just want to make sure that i -- while people have taken 12 and 11 and ten minutes i'm going to take a lot less. >> i don't think i would use the word duped but as i should in my testimony and my written statement i think that there has been an inconsistency to say the least within each agency i would argue of the jacinta questions community, and that is part of -- >> an inconsistency shouldn't be fearful at this point about the intelligence gathering apparatus of the united states being somehow put winked were duped or fooled by the muslim brotherhood in egypt or the united states. >> to that extent, first let me

start by saying i do not see whether the u.s. intelligence knows exactly -- >> this is the intelligence committee and while we are going to try to help them that is kind of our job is to then call them and say we have heard this at the hearing and you might want to correct these things shown to us in terms of -- >> so, i can't speak to this question of whether our intelligence agencies have been hoodwinked or not but since you are going to go back and speak to the people who do collect our intelligence, you could actually raise a question that i've had and this is because i lack intelligence both in the sense of intelligence gathering and iq. so chairman, you mentioned this 1991 explanatory memorandum and lorenzo mentioned it as well a document written by this muslim brotherhood by which is a document that i read and i got it and read it and it seemed to

be a document where this member of the muslim brotherhood in the united states is writing to his people back home and trying to encourage them to make the united states a kind of priority for the proposition political activism all kind of things. and the page in the document that caused the most controversy is the page that lists all of these organizations that lorenzo would call muslim brotherhood front organizations. and i guess the question -- and it's really just a question, it comes from me being a kind of nit picking academic. if you look at the title of the page it says these are the organizations of us and our friends in america. the second line says in brackets imagine if they all marched together. i thought to myself what an odd thing for a kind of organization like the muslim brotherhood to be singing these are the arms of the muslim brotherhood octopus why would they need to be thinking whimsically and out the

match at all these organizations could work together and this is important because it seems to me that list is a kind of desperation. at the end would movements or groups to emerge from the provider. i'm not making a factual statement i am just saying i interpret documents for a living and on that document i was sort of surprised we jump to say this is a list of malveaux tecum muslim brotherhood organizations because it seemed to the list of muslim organization the brotherhood would like to kind of organizing and coordinate swipe at to find out if there is other information folks like me don't have. >> i have the list here said they are all working with each other and if indeed there is this power to do that. look, i think one of the people testified that the brotherhood says things to different people

and as opportunistic and will say things to one group and then do something differently on another day. i've been in congress 19 years. a lot of people get elected and do just that. i assure you. after climbing it happens every year. what would be msnbc if they didn't catch us in the contradiction of what we say and opportunism. we try to of course to a higher measure. and i would simply suggest that back in chicago i'm going to tell you anyone that says to their dad or promotes if i were to go back and say i think it's a great idea that not attend their daughter's soccer game i don't know how long they're going to last in politics. i just want to say if that's what they are presenting, they don't have a chance. >> it didn't work for them in jordan, either. >> and you know,