OXFORD, England -- Even as the mass demonstrations began in Tunisia, who would have thought that Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali's regime would have collapsed so quickly? Who could have predicted that Egypt would soon witness such unprecedented popular protest? A barrier has fallen. Nothing will be the same again. It is quite likely that other countries will follow the lead of Egypt, given its central and symbolic significance. But what will be the role of the Islamists after the collapse of the dictatorships?
The Islamist presence has for decades justified the West's acceptance of the worst dictatorships in the Arab world. And it was these very regimes that demonized their Islamist opponents, particularly Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which historically represents that country's first well-organized mass movement with the political influence to match. For more than 60 years, the Brotherhood has been illegal but tolerated. It has demonstrated a powerful capacity to mobilize the people in each relatively democratic election -- for trade unions, professional associations, municipalities, parliament and so on -- where it has been a participant. So, are the Muslim Brothers the rising power in Egypt and, if so, what can we anticipate of such an organization?
In the West, we have come to expect superficial analyses of political Islam in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. However, not only is Islamism a mosaic of widely differing trends and factions, but its many different facets have emerged over time and in response to historical shifts.
The Muslim Brothers began in the 1930s as a legalist, anti-colonialist and nonviolent movement that claimed legitimacy for armed resistance in Palestine against Zionist expansionism during the period before World War II. The writings from between 1930 and 1945 of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Brotherhood, show that he opposed colonialism and strongly criticized the fascist governments in Germany and Italy. He rejected use of violence in Egypt, even though he considered it legitimate in Palestine, in resistance to the Zionist Stern and Irgun terror gangs. He believed that the British parliamentary model represented the kind closest to Islamic principles.
Al-Banna's objective was to found an "Islamic state" based on gradual reform, beginning with popular education and broad-based social programs. He was assassinated in 1949 by the Egyptian government on the orders of the British occupiers. Following Gamal Abdel Nasser's revolution in 1952, the movement was subjected to violent repression. Several distinct trends emerged. Radicalized by their experience of prison and torture, some of its members (who eventually left the organization) concluded that the state had to be overthrown at all costs, even with violence. Others remained committed to the group's original position of gradual reform.
Many of its members were forced into exile: some in Saudi Arabia, where they were influenced by the Saudi literalist ideology; others in countries such as Turkey and Indonesia, Muslim-majority societies where a wide variety of communities coexist. Still others settled in the West, where they came into direct contact with the European tradition of democratic freedom.
Today's Muslim Brotherhood draws these diverse visions together. But the leadership of the movement -- those who belong to the founding generation are now very old -- no longer fully represents the aspirations of the younger members, who are much more open to the world, anxious to bring about internal reform and fascinated by the Turkish example. Behind the unified, hierarchical facade, contradictory influences are at work. No one can tell which way the movement will go.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not leading the upsurge that is bringing down Hosni Mubarak: it is made up of young people, of women and men who have rejected dictatorship. The Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamists in general, do not represent the majority. There can be no doubt that they hope to participate in the democratic transition when Mubarak departs, but no one can tell which faction will emerge in a dominant position. That makes it impossible to determine the movement's priorities. Between the literalists and the partisans of the Turkish way, anything can happen; the Brotherhood's political thinking has evolved considerably over the past 20 years.
Neither the United States nor Europe, not to mention Israel, will easily allow the Egyptian people to make their dream of democracy and freedom come true. The strategic and geopolitical considerations are such that the reform movement will be, and is already, closely monitored by U.S. agencies in coordination with the Egyptian army, which has played for time and assumed the crucial role of mediator.
By deciding to line up behind Mohamed ElBaradei, who has emerged as the chief figure among the anti-Mubarak protesters, the Muslim Brotherhood's leadership has signaled that now is not the time to expose itself by making political demands that might frighten the west, not to mention the Egyptian people. Caution is the watchword.
Respect for democratic principles demands that all forces which reject violence, which respect the rule of law (both before and after elections) participate fully in the political process. The Muslim Brotherhood must be a full partner in the process of change -- and will be, if a minimally democratic state can be established in Egypt (though no one can define the intentions of foreign powers).
Neither repression nor torture has been able to eliminate the Brotherhood. The opposite is true. It is only democratic debate and the vigorous exchange of ideas that have had an impact on the development of the most problematic Islamist theses -- from understanding of the Sharia to respect for freedom and defense of equality. Only by exchanging ideas, and not by torture and dictatorship, can we find solutions that respect the people's will. Turkey's example should be an inspiration to us observers.
The West continues to use "the Islamist threat" to justify its passivity and outright support for dictatorships. As resistance to Mubarak mounted, the Israeli government repeatedly called on Washington to back his junta against the popular will. Europe adopted a wait-and-see stance. Both attitudes are revealing: at the end of the day, lip service to democratic principle carries little weight against the defense of political and economic interests. The U.S. prefers dictatorships that guarantee access to oil, and allow the Israelis to continue their slow colonization, to credible representatives of the people who could not allow these things to continue.
Citing the voices of dangerous Islamists to justify not listening to the voices of the people is short-termist as well as illogical. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, the U.S. has suffered heavy losses of credibility in the Middle East; the same is true for Europe. If the Americans and Europeans do not re-examine their policies, other powers in Asia and South America may begin to interfere soon with their elaborate structure of strategic alliances. As for Israel, which has now positioned itself as friend and protector of the Arab dictatorships, its government may well come to realize that those dictatorships are committed only to its policy of blind colonization.
The regional impact of Mubarak stepping down will be huge, yet the exact consequences are unpredictable. After both the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, the political message is clear: with nonviolent mass protest, anything is possible and no autocratic government is safe and secure any longer.
Presidents and kings are feeling the pressure of this historical turning point. The unrest has reached Algeria, Yemen and Mauritania. One should also look at Jordan, Syria and even Saudi Arabia: preventive reforms have been announced, as if there were a common feeling of fear and vulnerability. The rulers of all these countries know that if the Egyptian is collapsing, they run the risk of the same destiny. This state of instability is worrying and at the same time very promising. The Arab world is awakening with dignity and hope. The changes spell hope for true democrats, and trouble for those who would sacrifice democratic principle to their economic and geostrategic calculations. The liberation of Egypt seems to be just the start. Who will be next? If Jordan and Yemen follow, so will Saudi Arabia -- the heart of the Muslim world -- and Riyadh would be in a critical position, with no choice but to evolve towards a more open political system.
Around the world, among Muslims, there is a critical mass that would support this move, the necessary revolution at the center. In the end, only democracies that embrace all nonviolent political forces can bring about peace in the Middle East, a peace that must also respect the dignity of the Palestinians.
Tariq Ramadan is professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford. His latest book is "The Quest for Meaning: Developing a Philosophy of Pluralism" (Allen Lane). Ramadan is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928.
© 2011 Global Viewpoint Network; Dist. by Tribune Media SERVICES.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Get Ready to Compete With the Muslim Brotherhood: Egypt Could Chart a 'Third Way'
Dr. Judith Rich: Lessons from Cairo: Making Peace with Yourself
Philip N. Howard: A State Department 2.0 Response to the Arab Spring
Muslim Brotherhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Queen Noor: Don't Exclude Muslim Brotherhood
Get Ready to Compete With the Muslim Brotherhood: Egypt Could Chart a 'Third Way'
Al Jazeera: Muslim Brotherhood's Secret Weapon?
I agree with most.
However, I can not accept his comparison of the Egyptian and the Turkish societies and aspirations.
Look at the Pew Global research which was published on Dec 2010 to see by YOURSELF the AMAZING differences of attitude between the Egyptian Muslim public opinion and the Turkish one.
(http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/)
Unfortunately, Egyptian democracy if it will reflect the public inspirations, will look much more like Pakistan than Turkey.
However, I believe there are no shortcuts in the path of society progress. Shortcuts will just creating monster-societies like Afghanistan and Iraq. It like forcing a child to behave like an adult. He will miss essential childhood experience. The lack of that experience can make his a perverted adult. Same with society who was forced by external forces to have more progressed behavior than what they are ready too. Egyptians should develop their democracy in their own path, the way Western democracies done it. Any foreign intervention will just make the road to democracy which respect Human Rights just much longer. Western democracies can press the democratic leaders of Egypt to respect human rights of woman, children, etc, - and the new democratic regime will have to find its way between the external pressure and the street pressure, like any other democracy in the world.
"In neighboring Egypt and Turkey, attitudes toward Hezbollah are generally negative."
Moreover, it not up to you or the US government to decide their destiny. Its the eighty million people of Egypt, who has suffered so much by the brutal oppressive regime of the Mubarak autocracy.
This is the true American way, i.e the citizen of a country decides and choose their leaders ,and any who espouse the opposite is Un-American.
Only total separation of religion from the legal mechanisms of the state can protect the interests of the people. Until the time when Islam (or any other religion) is removed from discussion of the laws and policies of the nations of the Middle East, there is every reason to be suspicious of any organization that supports increased intrusion of religion into civil society, clearly this includes the Muslim Brotherhood.
The perfection of a democracy is judged by its capacity to represent the interests of the whole of its people with as little distortion as possible, including any religion in the political and legal functions of a state will unquestionably distort a state's capacity for democracy.
However, I suppose that Egypt and the nations of the Middle East are not soon going to embrace the separation of religion and state and given this, as has been said by others, the Muslim Brotherhood is arguably no worse than any other religion-based organization in control.
"Jihad is the way" by Mustafa Mashhur
Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, 1996-2002
the Islamic Ummah [nation]... can regain its power and be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men , as the leaders of humanity..."
- "...know your status, and believe firmly that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation..."
- "It should be known that Jihad and preparation towards Jihad are not only for the purpose of fending-off assaults and attacks of Allah's enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world..."
- "...Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and it shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, the State of Islam will be established,..." "
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71193807/Jihad-is-the-Way
Careful what you ask for.
"Fair and free elections" in Palestine, Algeria, Lebannon resulted in governments 'we' don't like all that much.
So the author would have us believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is the true force for democracy and equality in Egypt as the West inexplicably stands against freedom and democracy. No doubt this analysis will leave many readers scratching their heads.
But buried in his article, Ramadan provides us with the explanation. The founding cause of the Muslim Brotherhood was--and is--to establish an "Islamic state." In every country in which Islamists have ruled, freedom and democracy have suffered, and the only "equality" is between Muslim men.
So why try to argue the Muslim Brotherhood actually is a force FOR freedom and democracy? In the article, Ramadan writes, "...the Muslim Brotherhood's leadership has signaled that now is not the time to expose itself by making political demands that might frighten the west, not to mention the Egyptian people. Caution is the watchword."
Yes, caution should be the watchword when determining whether to believe the Muslim Brotherhood's idealized words or to look deeper for their ultimate objectives.
"The Muslim Brothers began in the 1930s as a legalist, anti-colonialist and nonviolent movement that claimed legitimacy for armed resistance in Palestine against Zionist expansionism during the period before World War II."
"The Muslim Brotherhood is not leading the upsurge that is bringing down Hosni Mubarak: it is made up of young people, of women and men who have rejected dictatorship. The Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamists in general, do not represent the majority."
Turkey succeeded because it is a secular nation, with no state religion. Egypt must do same. We could have become a Christian nation, fortunately the Founding Fathers were mostly Deists and did not let that happen, we got the First Amendment.
Like when they bomb Kurdish villages?
The Crusades, the Inquisition - you do know we Christians were the bad guys, right? The "persecuted Christians" stuff is a myth, we've been the persecutors.
This is what you call the big lie. The Copts in Egypt are treated worse by the muslims than blacks were treated in South Africa during Apartheid. Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts Also note that Copts are restricted by the Hamayouni Decree which does not even permit Christians to build Churches or repair damaged churches.
And also note that the Crusades were a defensive counter-attack. Launched only after invading muslim armies had conquered almost the entire Byzantine empire plus all of North Africa and Spain, which had previously been mostly Christian.
Really? Have you spoken to many Christians living in Pakistan? Or Coptic Christians in Egypt?
And then there is Sudan...you've heard about the Christian South voting to secede from the country to dispose of the overbearing (to put it mildly) Muslim north?
See, it's a good idea to avoid the word "always". And sweeping generalizations experience similar fail:
The youth you saw being interviewed are hardly spokespeople for the entire Christian Egyptian community; we don't know them to be typical of any experience other than their own.
For the time being the Muslim Brotherhood is the underdog and Ramadan paints it as victimized. But, when the time comes to step up to the plate, they must use judgment and vision -- whatever their history. They must not give Islam a bad name by ruining the latest revolution for democracy.
Says who???
Mubarak should lead the transition with FAIR and CLEAN elections and the Egyptian people should see what their parties and political groupings have to offer and then vote.
The Moslem Brothers shouldn't hide on the shadows of this popular rebellion to seize power without that anybody knows what they intend to do, like it happened in Iran about 30 years ago!
It's a shame anyone can post here, regardless of how cultured or sensible they are. Follow Dr. Ramadan, you may be surprised.