무슬림 형제단: Hasan al-Hudaybi와 이데올로기

하산 이스마 |>il al-Hudaybi는 무슬림 형제단 협회를 이끌었습니다.
위기와 해산의시기. Hasan al-Banna의 후속작, 설립자
조직의 첫 번째 리더, al-Hudaybi는
이십 년. 그의 리더십 기간 동안 그는 동료 형제들로부터 심한 비난을 받았습니다.
7 월 혁명 이후 1952, 그는 적대감에 맞서 싸웠다
의 >Abd al-Nasir, 위원회에서 점점 영향력이 커진
선도적 인 무료 오피서. >Abd al-Nasir’s determination to thwart the cause of the
Brotherhood and its infl uence on society was part of his path to absolute rule.
Considering the signifi cance of al-Hudaybi’s years as leader of the Muslim
형제간, it is surprising that there is little scholarly work on the subject.
When taking into account that his moderate ideas continue to have a strong infl uence
on the policy and attitude of today’s Muslim Brotherhood, e.g. his conciliatory
position towards the state system and his refutation of radical ideas, the fact
that so little attention is paid to his writing is even more startling. Certainly, there
has been interest in the Muslim Brotherhood. There are quite extensive studies
available on Hasan al-Banna’: the founder and fi rst leader of the Muslim Brotherhood
이슬람 캠페인의 모델 그림으로 묘사되었습니다; 다른 사람들은 묘사
이슬람이라는 이름으로 위협하는 정치 활동의 창시자. 그곳에
Sayyid Qutb의 아이디어에 더 많은 관심을 보였습니다.; 일부는 그를
이슬람 급진주의 이데올로기, 극단주의 그룹을 훈련시킨 개념; 기타
그를 해방 신학을 발전시킨 국가 박해의 희생자로 묘사
그의 학대에 대한 반응으로. 의심 할 여지 없음, 검사하는 것이 중요합니다
이슬람 이데올로기의 흐름을 이해하고
이슬람 운동. al-Banna’와 Qutb에 대한 평결이 뭐든, 그것은 사실입니다
두 사상가의 특정 아이디어가 현대에 통합되어
무슬림 형제단. 하나, 이 초점은 잘못된 인식으로 이어졌습니다.
the Islamic movement is necessarily radical in its thinking and/or militant in its
deeds, an assumption which has, in recent years, been questioned by a number
of scholars, among them John L. Esposito, Fred Halliday, François Burgat, 과
Gudrun Krämer. 1 The following study of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood under the
leadership of Hasan al-Hudaybi will form an addition to these theses, addressing
and reassessing the viewpoint that political Islam is a monolithic block, all in all
disposed towards violent means.
2 Introduction
There are reasons why al-Hudaybi is hardly mentioned in the literature on the
무슬림 형제단. The fi rst that comes to mind is the observation that Islamist
movements are, by defi nition, seen as fundamentally radical, anti-democratic and
anti-Western. This reasoning questions any distinction between moderate Islamism
and its radical counterpart. The argument goes that both have the objective
of establishing an Islamic state system, that they both aim to replace existing
secular governance and that they therefore differ only in the degree of their methods,
but not in principle. This book, 하지만, clearly joins the scholarly circle on
정치 이슬람, which identifi es arguments such as these as neo-Orientalist. As
Esposito shows, this approach to political Islam is based on what he terms ‘secular
fundamentalism’.
The external view of political Islam is focused primarily on radical thought,
and this may be due to the creation, on the part of power politics, of a fear of
Islam as a religion, which is different, strange and seemingly in opposition to
Western thought. Alternatively, it may be because radical or even militant groups
are constantly appearing in the media by reason of their actions. 사실로, 투사
Islamists actually seek such publicity. While radical thought and militant action
make it necessary to study extremist groups, the focus on terrorism in the name
of Islam marginalises moderate Islamists. It also makes it diffi cult to explain the
differences between radical and moderate Islamism. In effect, the scholarly focus
on radical or militant groups reinforces the generally negative public perception
of Islam in the West.
A further reason why al-Hudaybi in particular has not been studied by Western
scholars has to do with the internal affairs of the Brotherhood. It is astonishing
that his name is not mentioned much by the writers of the Muslim Brotherhood
itself. There is no simple explanation for this. One reason may be that members
particularly stress their sympathies for al-Banna’, depicting him as an ideal
leader who died for his activist convictions. 하나, as many Brothers endured
imprisonment, hard labour and even torture inside >Abd al-Nasir’s prisons and
camps, their personal histories have resulted in a dearth of discourse on Hasan
al-Hudaybi. 따라서, there is a tendency to remember al-Hudaybi’s period of leadership
as a time of near defeat and destruction. Still, the experiences of the
persecuted are caught in the ambiguous relationship between forgetting and reappraisal.
Many personal accounts of the time have been published since the mid
1970s, 2 narrating stories of torture and stressing steadfastness of faith. Only a
few of the books written by Muslim Brothers take a broader approach, which
includes discussion of a crisis within the organisation and of al-Hudaybi’s part
therein. Those authors who do tackle this issue not only reveal the society’s weak
position vis-à-vis >Abd al-Nasir, but also expose signs of disintegration within the
무슬림 형제단. 3 This has led to differing attitudes towards al-Hudaybi, with
most portraying him as an incompetent leader lacking the charismatic personality
of his predecessor, al-Banna’. 특히, he was accused of not commanding
the authority to bring together the different wings of the Muslim Brotherhood
or to adopt a strong position in relation to the authoritarian state system. In the
latter view lies an ambiguity, for it would appear to show al-Hudaybi not just as a
Introduction 3
failure, but also as a victim of the political situation. 드디어, these accounts reveal
an ideological gap which opened at the beginning of the period of persecution in
1954. To a certain extent, Sayyid Qutb fi lled this gap. During his imprisonment
he developed a radical approach, rejecting the then state system as illegitimate
and ‘un-Islamic’. In developing a revolutionary concept and explaining thereby
the reasons underlying the persecution, he turned the condition of victimisation
into one of pride. 따라서, he gave many imprisoned Muslim Brothers, 특별히
young members, an ideology that they could hold on to.
It has to be said that al-Hudaybi did not react decisively to the situation of
internal crisis and dissolution. 물론, to a certain extent his indecisiveness triggered
this situation. This was especially obvious during the period of persecution
(1954–71), when he omitted to provide any guidelines to help in overcoming
the feeling hopelessness ushered in by >Abd al-Nasir’s mass imprisonments. His
reaction to the radical ideas which fl ourished in the prisons and camps among
certain, especially young, members came fairly late. Even then, his scholarly and
juridical argumentation did not have the same sweeping effect as Sayyid Qutb’s
writings. ~ 안에 1969, al-Hudaybi proposed a moderate concept in his writing Du<at
la Qudat (Preachers not Judges). 4 This writing, which was secretly distributed
among fellow Brothers, is considered the fi rst substantial refutation of Sayyid
Qutb’s ideas. 5 Qutb, who was hanged in 1966, was by then considered to be a
martyr, his thoughts already having a considerable infl uence. This does not mean
that the majority of Muslim Brothers did not pursue a moderate approach, but the
lack of guidelines left them voiceless and reinforced the perception of al-Hudaybi
as a weak leader.
Nevertheless, al-Hudayb’is moderate thought had an impact on his fellow
Muslim Brothers. After the general amnesty of 1971, al-Hudaybi played a major
part in the re-establishment of the organisation. Although he died in 1973, his moderate
and conciliatory ideas continued to be relevant. The fact that close companions
such as Muhammad Hamid Abu Nasr, >Umar al-Tilmisani and Muhammad
Mashhur, who died recently, succeeded him as leaders shows the continuance of his
thought. Furthermore, his son Ma’mun al-Hudaybi has played a major role in
his capacity as the Brotherhood’s secretary and spokesman. Another reason why
his thinking became important lies in the changed attitude towards the Muslim
Brotherhood since Anwar al-Sadat’s presidency. Al-Sadat, who succeeded >Abd
al-Nasir, released the imprisoned Brothers and offered the organisation a half-legal
though not offi cially recognised status. A period of reorganisation (1971–77) followed,
during which the government lifted the censorship of books written by
Muslim Brothers. Many memoirs of formerly imprisoned members were published,
such as Zaynab al-Ghazali’s account or al-Hudaybi’s book Du<at la Qudat
(Preachers not Judges). Dealing with the past, these books did not merely preserve
the memory of the cruelties of >Abd al-Nasir’s persecution. Al-Sadat followed
his own agenda when he allowed these publications to fi ll the market; this
was a deliberate political stratagem, implying a change of direction and aimed at
distancing the new government from the old. The posthumous publication of
al-Hudaybi’s writings was not merely aimed at providing ideological guidance to
4 Introduction
the Muslim Brothers; they were distributed because of their statements against
radical thought, and were thus used to address a new and rising problem, 즉
the establishment of Islamist groups, which began to fi ght actively against the
political system in the early 1970s. In these terms, Du<at la Qudat remains an
important critique of radical thought.
Hasan al-Hudaybi’s main aim was to change society, 즉. Egyptian society,
which, in his view, was not aware of the political nature of Islamic belief. 따라서,
real change could only be brought about through creating awareness and by
tackling the issue of Islamic identity (as opposed to a Western perception). Only
이슬람 의식을 개발함으로써 궁극적 인 목표가 될 수 있습니다.
이슬람 사회의 설립에 도달. 이 접근 방식을 감안할 때, al-Hudaybi
반박 된 혁명적 전복, 대신 점진적 발전을 설교
이내에. 따라서 중요한 점은 교육과 사회적 참여였습니다., 만큼 잘
정치 체제 참여, 사명을 통해 호소 ( 준다<wa ) ~로
개별 신자의 의식.
그의이 길은 이제 오늘날의 무슬림 형제단이 따라옵니다, 노력하는
정당으로 인정되고 정치적 결정에 영향을 미치는
정치 참여 구조를 조사하여 만들기 (의회, 관리,
비정부 조직). 무슬림 형제단에 대한이 연구
1950 년대부터 1970 년대 초까지, 따라서, 단지 연구의 일부가 아닙니다.
the modern political history of Egypt and an analysis of a religious ideology, 하지만
has also a relationship to current politics.

바바라 H.E. Zollner

HasanHasan Ismail al-Hudaybi led the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood during a time of crisis and dissolution. Hasan al-Banna의 후속작, who was the founder and first leader of the organisation, al-Hudaybi was to be its head for more than twenty years. 그의 리더십 기간 동안 그는 동료 형제들로부터 심한 비난을 받았습니다.

7 월 혁명 이후 1952, he was pitted against the antagonism of Abd al-Nasir, who became increasingly infl uential in the council of leading Free Officers. Abd al-Nasir’s determination to thwart the cause of the Brotherhood and its infl uence on society was part of his path to absolute rule. Considering the signifi cance of al-Hudaybi’s years as leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is surprising that there is little scholarly work on the subject.

When taking into account that his moderate ideas continue to have a strong infl uence on the policy and attitude of today’s Muslim Brotherhood, e.g. his conciliatory position towards the state system and his refutation of radical ideas, the fact that so little attention is paid to his writing is even more startling. Certainly, there has been interest in the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are quite extensive studies available on Hasan al-Banna’: the founder and fi rst leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has been described as a model figure of Islamic campaigning; others depict him as the originator of threatening political activism in the name of Islam.

There has been even more interest in the ideas of Sayyid Qutb; some see him as the ideologue of Islamist radicalism, 극단주의 그룹을 훈련시킨 개념; others describe him as a victim of state persecution who developed a theology of liberation in reaction to his maltreatment.

의심 할 여지 없음, it is important to examine the work of these thinkers in order to understand currents of Islamist ideology and Islamist movements. al-Banna’와 Qutb에 대한 평결이 뭐든, it is a fact that certain ideas of the two thinkers have been incorporated into the modern-day Muslim Brotherhood.

하나, this focus has led to an incorrect perception that the Islamic movement is necessarily radical in its thinking and/or militant in its deeds, an assumption which has, in recent years, been questioned by a number of scholars, among them John L. Esposito, Fred Halliday, François Burgat, and Gudrun Krämer.

The following study of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood under the leadership of Hasan al-Hudaybi will form an addition to these theses, addressing and reassessing the viewpoint that political Islam is a monolithic block, all in all disposed towards violent means.

There are reasons why al-Hudaybi is hardly mentioned in the literature on the Muslim Brotherhood. The fi rst that comes to mind is the observation that Islamist movements are, by defi nition, seen as fundamentally radical, anti-democratic and anti-Western.

This reasoning questions any distinction between moderate Islamism and its radical counterpart. The argument goes that both have the objective of establishing an Islamic state system, that they both aim to replace existing secular governance and that they therefore differ only in the degree of their methods, but not in principle.

This book, 하지만, clearly joins the scholarly circle on political Islam, which identifi es arguments such as these as neo-Orientalist. As Esposito shows, this approach to political Islam is based on what he terms ‘secular fundamentalism’.

The external view of political Islam is focused primarily on radical thought, and this may be due to the creation, on the part of power politics, of a fear of Islam as a religion, which is different, strange and seemingly in opposition to

Western thought. Alternatively, it may be because radical or even militant groups are constantly appearing in the media by reason of their actions. 사실로, militant Islamists actually seek such publicity.

While radical thought and militant action make it necessary to study extremist groups, the focus on terrorism in the name of Islam marginalises moderate Islamists.

It also makes it difficult to explain the differences between radical and moderate Islamism. In effect, the scholarly focus on radical or militant groups reinforces the generally negative public perception of Islam in the West.

A further reason why al-Hudaybi in particular has not been studied by Western scholars has to do with the internal affairs of the Brotherhood. It is astonishing that his name is not mentioned much by the writers of the Muslim Brotherhood itself. There is no simple explanation for this.

한 가지 이유는 회원들이 특히 al-Banna에 대한 공감을 강조하기 때문일 수 있습니다., 그의 활동가 신념 때문에 죽은 이상적인 지도자로 묘사. 하나, 많은 형제들이 투옥을 견뎌, 압드 알 나시르의 교도소와 수용소 내부에서 힘든 노동과 고문까지, 그들의 개인 역사는 하산 알 후 다이 비에 대한 담론의 부족을 초래했습니다..

따라서, Al-Hudaybi의 리더십 시대를 거의 패배와 파괴의 시대로 기억하는 경향이 있습니다.. Still, 박해받는 사람들의 경험은 망각과 재평가의 모호한 관계에 사로 잡힌다.

1970 년대 중반 이후 많은 개인 계정이 게시되었습니다., 2 narrating stories of torture and stressing steadfastness of faith. 무슬림 형제가 쓴 책 중 일부만이 더 광범위한 접근 방식을 취합니다., 여기에는 조직 내부의 위기와 그 안에있는 al-Hudaybi의 부분에 대한 논의가 포함됩니다.. 이 문제를 다루는 저자들은 Abd al-Nasir에 대한 사회의 약점을 드러 낼뿐만 아니라, but also expose signs of disintegration within the

무슬림 형제단. 3 This has led to differing attitudes towards al-Hudaybi, 대부분은 그를 전임자의 카리스마가 부족한 무능한 리더로 묘사합니다., al-Banna’. 특히, 그는 무슬림 형제단의 다른 날개들을 모으거나 권위주의 국가 체제와 관련하여 강력한 지위를 채택하도록 권한을 명령하지 않은 혐의로 기소되었습니다..

후자의 견해에는 모호성이 있습니다., 알-후 데이비가 단지 실패가 아니라, but also as a victim of the political situation. 드디어, 이러한 기록은 박해 초기에 열린 이데올로기 적 격차를 보여준다. 1954.

To a certain extent, Sayyid Qutb fi lled this gap. 수감 기간 동안 그는 급진적 인 접근 방식을 개발했습니다., 당시 국가 시스템을 불법적이고 '비 이슬람'으로 거부. 혁명적 개념을 개발하고 박해의 원인을 설명함으로써, 그는 희생의 조건을 자부심으로 바꿨습니다..

따라서, he gave many imprisoned Muslim Brothers, 특히 젊은 회원, an ideology that they could hold on to.

알 후 데이비는 내부 위기와 해산 상황에 단호하게 반응하지 않았다. 물론, 어느 정도 그의 우유부단 함이이 상황을 촉발 시켰습니다.

This was especially obvious during the period of persecution (1954–71), Abd al-Nasir의 대규모 투옥으로 인해 야기 된 절망감을 극복하는 데 도움이되는 지침을 제공하지 않았을 때. 감옥과 수용소에서 사라진 급진적 사상에 대한 그의 반응은, especially young, members came fairly late.

Even then, 그의 학문적, 법률 적 주장은 Sayyid Qutb의 저술과 같은 광범위한 효과를 나타내지 않았습니다.. ~ 안에 1969, al-Hudaybi proposed a moderate concept in his writing Duat la Qudat (Preachers not Judges).

This writing, which was secretly distributed among fellow Brothers, is considered the fi rst substantial refutation of Sayyid Qutb’s ideas. 5 Qutb, who was hanged in 1966, was by then considered to be a martyr, his thoughts already having a considerable infl uence.

This does not mean that the majority of Muslim Brothers did not pursue a moderate approach, but the lack of guidelines left them voiceless and reinforced the perception of al-Hudaybi as a weak leader.

Nevertheless, al-Hudayb’is moderate thought had an impact on his fellow Muslim Brothers. After the general amnesty of 1971, al-Hudaybi played a major part in the re-establishment of the organisation. Although he died in 1973, his moderate and conciliatory ideas continued to be relevant.

The fact that close companions such as Muhammad Hamid Abu Nasr, Umar al-Tilmisani and Muhammad Mashhur, who died recently, succeeded him as leaders shows the continuance of his thought.

Furthermore, his son Ma’mun al-Hudaybi has played a major role in his capacity as the Brotherhood’s secretary and spokesman.

Another reason why his thinking became important lies in the changed attitude towards the Muslim Brotherhood since Anwar al-Sadat’s presidency. Al-Sadat, who succeeded Abd al-Nasir, released the imprisoned Brothers and offered the organisation a half-legal though not offi cially recognised status.

A period of reorganisation (1971–77) followed, during which the government lifted the censorship of books written by Muslim Brothers. Many memoirs of formerly imprisoned members were published, such as Zaynab al-Ghazali’s account or al-Hudaybi’s book Du<at la Qudat (Preachers not Judges).

Dealing with the past, these books did not merely preserve the memory of the cruelties of Abd al-Nasir’s persecution.

Al-Sadat followed his own agenda when he allowed these publications to fi ll the market; this was a deliberate political stratagem, 방향의 변화를 암시하고 새로운 정부를 구 정부로부터 멀어지게하는 것을 목표로 함.

al-Hudaybi의 글이 사후에 출판 된 것은 무슬림 형제들에게 이데올로기 적 지침을 제공하기위한 것이 아닙니다.; 급진적 사고에 대한 진술 때문에 배포되었습니다., and were thus used to address a new and rising problem, 즉 이슬람 단체의 설립, 1970 년대 초 정치 체제에 적극적으로 반대하기 시작했습니다. In these terms, Duat la Qudat는 급진적 사고에 대한 중요한 비판으로 남아 있습니다..

Hasan al-Hudaybi’s main aim was to change society, 즉. Egyptian society, which, in his view, was not aware of the political nature of Islamic belief. 따라서, 진정한 변화는 인식을 창출하고 이슬람 정체성 문제를 해결해야만 가져올 수 있습니다. (as opposed to a Western perception).

이슬람 의식의 발전을 통해서만 이슬람 사회 설립의 궁극적 인 목표에 도달 할 수 있습니다.. 이 접근 방식을 감안할 때, al-Hudaybi는 혁명적 전복을 반박, instead preaching gradual development from within. 따라서 중요한 점은 교육과 사회적 참여였습니다., as well as participation in the political system, 사명을 통해 호소 ( dawa ) to the consciousness of the individual believer.

그의이 길은 이제 오늘날의 무슬림 형제단이 따라옵니다, which endeavors to be recognised as a political party and which infl uences political decision making by infi ltrating the political participatory structures (의회, 관리, 비정부 조직).

This study of the Muslim Brotherhood from the 1950s until the early 1970s, 따라서, is not only a piece of research into the modern political history of Egypt and an analysis of a religious ideology, but has also a relationship to current politics.

Filed Under: 이집트특집무슬림 형제단연구 & 연구

태그:

About the Author: Ikhwanscope is an independent Muslim Progressive and moderate non-profit site, concentrating mainly on the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ikhwanscope is concerned with all articles published relating to any movements which follow the school of thought of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide.

RSS코멘트 (0)

Trackback URL

Leave a Reply