So, uhhh, why can't we see any old posts of yours?

I, er uh, wouldn't go ahead and quote STRATFOR as gospel there. And seriously, no coverage of this outside of Twitter? Is this really not making a dent in the U.S. at all?

As for conflating Tunisia with Sarkozy, well, that makes as much sense as comparing Ireland to the U.S. Just because there are Tunisians in France doesn't relate Arab people there to Arab people in Africa. Things are, well, complicated.

As the Carpetblogger said: We promote Democracy and the power of the people. Islamists need not apply.

And if you seriously think some sort of Domino Theory of the Arab World, or otherwise conflate the USSR with a swath of land largely inhabited by a single ethnic group...what? Did Nasser revive his United Arab Republic as a strawman or something? Or is this the case of a slender group of the pie projecting their dreams on a country?

You'd enjoy this story of Gulsum Tatar. She's kind of awesome, actually.

Ms. Ball, seriously?

"I don’t have a relation with the organization" is right after what you bolded.At some point, its an argument of semantics and translations, but its hardly conclusive either way.

FWIW, that's the exact quote that Ms. Berlinski took from their website, as well.

You know what's missing from that long list of groups that al-Qaradawi is involved in?

The Muslim Brotherhood.

You also have yet to mention why any of those 15 groups should be considered un-good, save for Bank al-Taqwa (and if you want to research a hustle, Islamic Banking is quite possibly it. E-mail me! I have sources!)

Really, this is becoming much. You haven't linked al-Qaradawi or Qutb to the Brotherhood and you haven't shown how al-Banna was anything more sinister then Rav Phillipson. The entire "Muslim Conspiracy" as highlighted is nothing more then "All of these guys pray to the same God" in the current argument.

Again, I have been absurdly busy at work (Islamic banks!) but this deserves more than the 200 words I currently have.

Mon cher rifle, considering how ready many are to attack people with whom they disagree, any politeness should be highlighted and praised. I have to say, I've enjoyed typing with Ms. Berlinski, and I usually shy from political debate because of namecalling.

That said, of course, I disagree. I've made a point not to use "moderate" for the exact reason TeeJaw stated. It doesn't mean much.

As for al-Qaradawi? The only source of him being asked to be chairman of MB is...al-Qaradawi. One would think the official English organ of MB would say if they wanted him.

The way I see, Islamic politics is foremost politics. Al-Qaradawi has his own mission beyond MB's and has a brand beyond MB's. He's a complex (and not particularly friendly) man, but he's not MB.

More later, when I'm not working 14-hour days.

Unnng, long night, I'll get to the rebuttal when I have sleep.

That said, Istanbulnotes had a point on women and the Gulen movement, a point you recognized. His article here, with accompanying awesome graph, is illuminating. In the AKP years, women are slightly more employed in cities and much less employed in rurality. They are become a more skilled, modernized, workforce. Of course there is much work to be done. There is also a good look at Gulen schools as respective to the status quo here (but focusing on Central Asia). Gender Apartheid only as much as a St. Ignatius or similar. Education in Turkey is likely in need of a change, its much rote learning. Which has as much to do with Islam as balkava.

As to MB, gentlemen like Coolhand would be served to cite a) a definition of "the MB view point" and b) "Moderate Islam" before they make claims. Otherwise, its just an assertion masked with proper nouns.

Before I hit the hay, I'd say that there was some history skipped over. Namely, Nasser. And I'll lean heavily on Nathan Brown when I write tomorrow.

Iyi geceler, dostlarim.

Ms. Berlinski, if I seem glib, it is because I have only 200 words to work with. It is very difficult to make fully-fledged responses so short, especially when my writing style puts me squarely in need of an editor with a big knife.

Anyways, I think a comparison of California to Egypt is just as glib. Women in developing countries have it rough, whether it is Colombia or Yemen. And I'm not nearly well-read enough in the specifics to start comparing a life of a drug mule to the life of a kept, niqab'd, wife. But there are certainly shades of gray.

And to respond to Kurobara and the ilk, using the Taliban as representative of Islam is like using the Lord's Resistance Army as representative of Christianity. Violent men have a tendency to use religious elements to give them impunity. It's awful, but its not the stranglehold of one religion.

Tariq Ramadan? Well, we're not nearly chronographically ready for him yet. Fascinating dude, though. Let's get back to the ol' MB...

In terms of the hijab, well, there's little differentiating it from the demands of modesty and symbolic adherence then any religion. I think all religions ask modesty of their adherents, just Muslims tend to enforce it a bit more. The burqa is a bit more complex. I really don't know enough about Islam and Sexuality to talk further. But you quickly run into life being unjust to women the world over, I think.

But how many American women are internationally famous? We know our own, but do you think even Canadians know Betsy Ross or Molly Pitcher? Most foreigners would say - gasp - Hillary Clinton. It's like that with us and Muslim women. It's easy to put Benazir on a pedestal, but Americans won't know a Ciller or a Hasina.

Just so we're clear, Ms. Berlinski's "we can't meet for a drink" is entirely theoretical outside of Saudi Arabia (which has an ambivalent relationship to the MB, FWIW). And yeah, eating in Istanbul ain't that bad.

I'm actually still around Istanbul, will be for a bit, depending on visa issues (now THERE is a topic that'll get me grumpy). So all else aside, we should definitely meet, you have my e-mail.

And I'll be in Egypt this spring to visit a friend who is moving there. Will have news to report in, oh, a few months or so.

That said, drinks are drinks, and I am very sure I will have some in Egypt. At the same time, I never drink with my Gülen friends here because that would be an insult to them. And I never understood why people get upset over the lack of alcohol, but the lack of pork is more of just a disappointment? And why there's consternation over the veil, but never the beard?

I'll never forget the first time I returned from Istanbul, went to a frat party, and was shocked at the way my female friends dressed. And if you walk through Üsküdar and see how girls use the veil as a fashion accessory - or see them making out with their boyfriends in Gülhane, you'd agree its complicated?

Sorry to take so long to respond. I'm in Berlinski's hood, 7 hours ahead of you. And I'm a bit sick. And just because there was confusion earlier, I'm a 'he'.

Anyways, thanks, Michael, for seeing my point. And Kenneth: the MB does a lot of the 'devote their lives to providing humanitarian care in the most benighted corners of the globe' that you mention, Kenneth. I don't care to argue whether Christianity or Islam is better...I'm neither. I just wanted to contextualize the MB.

As for violence, I was planning to get to that later. A LOT of offshoots spun off MB, but al-Banna is as responsible for them as, say, Gandhi is for the 2002 Gujarat nastiness. Simply, a lot happened in the meantime. Al-Banna was no Gandhi of course, but he was no bin Laden, either.

And Sadat was murdered by Khalid Islambouli of the Islamic Jihad movement, related to al-Zawahiri and Omar Abdel-Rahman of 1993 WTC Bombing infamy. Islamic Jihad was formed in direct opposition to the peaceful attitude of MB.

I'm running out of space, but the MB - officially - abhors violence.

Well, that didn't go nearly as far as I'd hope, but yeah, check the link, that's what I was trying to say. Hope that we can take the discussion from there. And thanks again. It's always tough to convey civility on twitter.

Geez. Only 200 words? Well, the link to my full response is this: http://gazistan.blogspot.com/2011/01/muslim-brotherhood-history-counterpoint.html

Thank you for inviting me into a debate, and I'm sorry that it took so long. I think it's a debate worth having, and I'm glad you do too.

To understand MB, one has to look at the context in which they began. We will move on to the post-war Brotherhood tomorrow, as you say.

Islam is an evangelical religion. Some branches more than others. It seeks to convert non-believers and asks its adherents to act as ambassadors for the religion and to live their lives religiously. It is no different from Evangelical Christianity in this regard.

Note that al-Banna goes out of his way to not use the term "Jihad bil Sayf". He rejected violence. MB has rejected violent means from its inception in 1928 (here) until current day (here).

If we're talking about them as a group, we're discussing an explicitly anti-violence organization that fell along the vaqf tradition of Egypt, but trying to bring it in line with 20th century determinationist and nationalist movements.