READ Middle East Brief 23

Understanding the Muslim Brothers in Egypt Dr. Abdel Monem Said Aly The horrific events of September 11, 2001, and the resulting confrontations between Western countries, primarily the United States, and a variety of Islamic forces have raised the following question: What should be done with the Islamists? The United States’ failure in Iraq, NATO’s more recent failures in Afghanistan, the impressive performance of Hezbollah during the 2006 war in Lebanon, the salience of “Sharia Courts” in Somalia, the strengthening of Islamic forces in Pakistan, and the electoral success of Hamas in Palestine and the Muslim Brothers in Egypt: All make this question especially pertinent and urgent. Any serious attempt to answer this question would soon reveal that what are referred to as “Islamic” forces not only are highly diversified along sectarian and ideological lines and with regard to competing approaches to politics and the use of violence; they are also differentiated within each of these categories by nationality and other geopolitical variables. Faced with this mosaic of religious- political groupings, academics and policy makers in and outside the United States tend to classify Islamic political groups into “radicals” and “moderates.” While the first of these terms implies a greater willingness on the part of those so described to use violence—including terror—to achieve their political goals, moderates are viewed as restricting themselves to the use of political means to achieve their objectives. Among the latter groups, the Muslim Brothers in Egypt are often seen as most prominent. Their success in electoral politics, the success of the Justice and Development Party in Turkey, and the widely respected place gained by a similar party in Morocco have raised the possibility that Islamic countries can produce “Islamic Democrats,” in much the same way that Western countries have produced “Christian Democrats” in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. December 2007 No. 23 On the basis of this assessment, think tanks and academics began to produce a growing body of literature proposing that Islamists be engaged within the political processes of these countries. A policy of “engaging Islamists” was suggested as a response on the part of the West to the problems with which it is faced in the Middle East.1 As it is most frequently presented, the argument has two facets. The first exposes the inefficiency, incompetence, and corruption of the present Arab regimes and their practice of suppressing opposition; the second emphasizes the popularity, vitality, dynamism, and increasingly democratic convictions of “moderate” Islamic parties. Parallel to the broader suggestions that Islamists be engaged, a more specific body of literature focuses on the Muslim Brothers in Egypt. The significance of this literature stems from Egypt’s historical and geostrategic importance as well as from the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood movement was born in Egypt in 1928 and has spread from there to the rest of the Islamic world. (Not surprisingly, the International Organization of the Muslim Brothers has always been led by Egyptians.) This literature invariably refers to political dynamics in Egypt in terms of the repressive control exercised by the Egyptian regime on the one hand, and the moderate agenda of the Muslim Brothers, and their pursuit of peaceful political participation, on the other.2 The purpose of this Brief is to question the validity of the arguments commonly made in asserting the moderation of the Muslim Brothers in Egypt, and of the evidence mobilized to support these assertions. It is also meant to ask under what conditions moderation and democratic values might become intrinsic parts of the Muslim Brothers’ ideology and behavior. Regarding this broader question, this Brief will argue that the Muslim Brothers are a highly diversified political movement. The movement’s positions regarding politics in general and democracy in particular differ considerably from one country to another, depending on these countries’ specific historical, cultural, intellectual, and socioeconomic conditions. Decisions as to whether or not Islamists should be engaged must therefore be based on the specific approach to politics and democracy adopted by each Muslim Brothers movement and not on some imaginary general depiction of these movements as committed to democracy. Fortunately for analytical purposes, the Muslim Brothers in Egypt have produced Abdel Monem Said Aly is massive amounts of literature: books, declarations, websites, bloggers, and statements. Their representation in the Egyptian Parliament now for a number Director of the Al Ahram of years allows a close examination of their policy positions. This Middle East Center for Political & Brief relies heavily on the political behavior of the Brothers since 2005, when they Strategic Studies, Cairo, gained 20 percent of the seats in the Egyptian Parliament. Additional sources are the program they adopted that year along with three documents they produced in Egypt and a Senior Fellow 2007: their response to the “government statement” in January; the position they at the Crown Center adopted toward the elections to the Shura Council in June; and the draft program for Middle East Studies, they adopted in September for their prospective political party. Brandeis University. Historical Background For almost eight decades, the Society of Muslim Brothers or Muslim Brotherhood has been an integral part of the Egyptian body politic. Established by Hassan Al Bana in Ismailia in 1928 with the goal of restoring the Caliphate and implementing The opinions and findings expressed in this the Sharia law, it soon spread in Egypt and beyond, into the Islamic world at large. essay are those of the author exclusively, and Throughout this period, the Muslim Brothers acted as a political movement posing do not reflect the official positions or policies a challenge to the modern Egyptian state, which was established in 1922. Whether of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies Egypt was a kingdom (1922–53) or a republic (1953 to the present) the Brothers or Brandeis University. confronted all Egyptian regimes, leading to their periodic repression and the imprisonment of their leaders. In the 1970s, President Sadat released the Muslim Brothers from prison. He also allowed them to enter informally—without legal status—into the process of liberalizing Egyptian politics. As a result, the Brothers began to participate in elections and, more broadly, in the country’s political life—running as independent candidates who gradually adopted a relatively new political vocabulary, invoking 2 concepts of democracy, civil society, human rights, equality, their belief in tolerance and equality, and their opposition to and citizenship. In the 2005 parliamentary elections, they the theocratic state. gained 88 seats, almost 20 percent of the elected seats—a major increase from the 17 seats they had held since 2000. A message sent not long ago to the press as well as to (They had won 8 seats in the 1984 elections and 36 in the Egyptian intellectuals by Mohammed Mahdi Akef, the 1987 elections.3) An informal legalization of the Brothers has Supreme Guide, clarified the Muslim Brothers’ position on in effect taken place, accompanied by a sharp rise in their a variety of issues. Akef notes that rulers are human beings, public stature and affording them a permanent presence in and as such have no religious powers or authority. For him, the Egyptian and pan-Arab media.4 “the legitimacy of a ruling in a society of Muslims is based on the satisfaction . of the people and on [the rulers’] In their early years, the Brothers resisted the idea of creating ability to provide people with the space to express opinions a political party, regarding parties as tools used by the West and participate in public affairs.” What form this takes, he to divide “the Islamic umma,” or community of believers. As argued, would depend on when and where the principle their participation in public life grew, however, the Brothers of “shura” (consultation) is implemented. At this time, he began to discuss the idea of creating a political party. Their writes, if the shura has any meaning in Islam, “it converges 1986 proposal to establish a “Shura Party” was their first with the democratic system which puts matters of state in public declaration of intent to form a party. They tried again the hands of the majority, without prejudice to different in the early 1990s, and yet again, in 1995, under the banner minorities’ legitimate right to express and defend opinions of “Reform.” That effort was led by Abdel-Moneim Abul- and positions and to call for supporting these positions.” Futuh, a member of the Brotherhood’s Politburo. Within this context, Islam—and, accordingly, the Muslim The next attempt, under the name Wasat (Center) Party, Brothers—are said to believe in human rights, and in the began in the mid-1990s, following the partial disaffiliation equality of man without regard to religion, creed, color, of a segment of the younger members of the Brotherhood.5 ethnicity, or nationality. Thus, Christians in Egypt are seen The most recent attempt, launched in September 2007, as equal partners in the homeland. Moreover, the position was accompanied by the circulation of a more detailed of the Muslim Brothers is that they will use only peaceful draft program, addressing itself to the major questions means to achieve their goals; they condemn all who use involved in the relationship

Load more