Muslim group has head start in Egypt

February 27, 2011


— Could the Muslim Brotherhood take over after the Egyptian revolution?

For years, Hosni Mubarak insisted his authoritarian regime was all that prevented an Islamist deluge. He used the Brotherhood bogeyman as an excuse to crush almost all political opposition, including liberals and leftists. He banned the Brotherhood but let it run candidates for parliament, thus giving the bogeyman more heft.

The result: The Brotherhood (known as the Ikhwan) is by far the best-organized political movement in the barren Egyptian political landscape. Having renounced violence decades ago — the blogosphere notwithstanding, the Ikhwan did not kill President Anwar Sadat — the Brothers are poised to take advantage of Egypt’s new democratic opening, form a political party, and set up a satellite-TV network. Although their strength probably does not exceed 15 to 20 percent of the population, their organizational skills could gain them a hefty chunk of parliamentary seats.

Yet Egypt is not Iran. Countervailing forces should, at least for the foreseeable future, keep Egyptian Islamists in check.

First, the youths who led Egypt’s 18-day revolution are seeking democracy, not an Islamic state. “The silent majority in Tahrir Square, when (it) finally found a voice, none of them showed religious leaning or carried Muslim Brotherhood slogans,” I was told by Khaled Sayed, an intense young leftist and key leader in a coalition of youth groups. We met in the Groppi cafe, a faded remnant of Egypt’s past, with Art Deco panels and chandeliers, that has become a meeting place for revolutionary youths.

A contingent of young Muslim Brothers did play a key role during the revolt, but the Ikhwan as a whole was slow to support the rebellion. Most Tahrir Square activists don’t want to see their revolution hijacked by an Islamist group.

Second, the Ikhwan must prove itself to a population that has suddenly become politically conscious. “When only 20 percent of the population was politically active, the Muslim Brotherhood had a great chance,” said the well-known young blogger Ahmad Badawi. “When the door is open to more activism, and when maybe 70 percent of the population is active, the Ikhwan can be balanced by other forces.”

Badawi says new political parties, plus the 10 percent of the population that is Coptic Christian, will offset the Ikhwan’s clout. But he says he fears the six-month schedule set by the army for new elections will leave too little time for these parties to get off the ground.

Of course, the most critical balancing factor will be the army. Many Egyptians, drawing parallels with Turkey, believe their military will keep the Islamists under control.

Much will also depend on how the Muslim Brothers play their cards in this new environment. A 2007 draft of the Ikhwan’s platform set off alarm bells when it called for banning women and Copts from the presidency and for a body of clerics to advise parliament on the Islamic validity of legislation. This alienated many Egyptians.

I visited the Ikhwan’s shabby but bustling headquarters in Cairo’s Manial district to see the deputy chairman of the Brotherhood, Rashad Mohamed al-Bayoumi. His avuncular appearance belies the 18 years he spent in prison. He stated: “We will not seek the presidency, and we will not seek a majority of seats” in parliament. So the Ikhwan is trying to calm fears that it seeks power.

Asked whether he wants an Islamic state, Bayoumi replied: “An Iran-type government can’t exist here, because it is a civil state.” But this rhetoric didn’t sit well with his insistence that “if we won control of government, no Christian or woman could serve as president” or that liquor should be forbidden except in “areas used by foreigners.”

Clearly, the Ikhwan is still trying to define its platform in this new environment, where it can now operate openly but can’t legally form a “religious” party.

Younger Brothers who took part in the Tahrir Square revolt and are Facebook-savvy use different language. “We want a civil state that doesn’t differentiate between people based on religion,” said Mohammad Abbas, 25, a handsome, beardless youth who battled in the square. “We want a state where freedom of assembly and speech are guaranteed.”

Will the more modern Ikhwan youths pull their elders toward an Islamic politics more compatible with democracy? Perhaps. Yet their language does not convince non-Islamist Egyptians of their benign intentions.

The best way to balance the Ikhwan is for Egyptians to build new parties that appeal to Egypt’s majority, leaving the Islamists to play a minority role. But that hope comes with a caveat: It assumes the army will always be there in the background to make certain nothing goes wrong.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.


Abdu Omar 7 years, 3 months ago

Are we Americans always in fear of Islam? Are we sure that Islam doesn't bring some truth? What do we know about it except a few are terrorists? There were Jews that were terrorists during the establishment of Israel and their were Christians who killed millions causing a holocaust for Jews, Muslims, gypsies, etc in Germany and througout middle Europe during the early 1940's. Not all Jews or Christians are terrorists and not all Muslims are either. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is peaceful and eschews peace and liberty. We may not like the name, but it is what they stand for that is important. Let's wait and see before we pass judgement.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 3 months ago

Whatever the Muslim Brotherhood is, or isn't, it's an Egyptian issue, not an American one.

If we can learn to butt out, and let Egyptians sort out their own problems, we'll have nothing to worry about in the way of blowback-- something that has been biting us in the backside for decades because of our penchant for meddling.

Brent Garner 7 years, 3 months ago

According to the Brotherhood's own publication they agitate for a world wide caliphate, otherwise known as an Islamic government. When queried closedly this would mean an end of all other religions, an end of freedom of speech, an end of any rights women have. It would indeed move mankind back to the 7th century. Please do not be deceived by the nice words spoken at the mouth by these people. Look at what they do in any area when they achieve control. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Iran. Look at Pakistan. Look at Indonesia's muslim controlled areas. Look at what is happening in Malaysia and Thailand as these people forcibly spread their religion. Public pronouncements by our leaders and others that Islam is a religion of peace are not borne out by their current practices. Be not deceived.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 3 months ago

Come on, Brent, if you could impose your religion the world, you would.

Brent Garner 7 years, 3 months ago

Bozo, that is probably the most incongruous statement you have made about me. I will grant you that during and around and following the Reneiissance, there was a routine practice of Christian groups imposing their version on people. Most of Europe's wars during that period had a religious aspect to them usually involving whether or not Catholocism or some form of Protestantism would be in charge. The final vestigages of that concept are finally burning out in Northern Ireland. In other words, Christianity got over the impose religion thing.

Islam, on the other hand, has not. Its entire religious history has been one massive case of the sword or the Qur'on. It was Muslim invasions in the Middle East and from Muslim occupied Spain that led to the Crusades and other battles. The United States ran into a version of this with the so-called Barbary Pirates who openly proclaimed that they were seeking to force Islam on others.

Now, take this to the present day. What do we see? In Muslim controlled areas of Indonesia Christians are not even being permitted to meet privately without fear of Muslim reprisal to include death. The same is true throughout Pakistan. In Egypt, the Copts, an early Christian sect, have been murdered without the government doing a thing to protect them, and this was before Mubarak was overthrown. In fact, you cannot point to a Muslim dominated area where any freedom of religion is permitted. Yet, in so called western Christian--and I use that term very loosely for some--countries one can choose to worshop how one wishes or even not worship without fear of reprisal by their neighbors or by the government. Such is not the case under Islam.

Thus, Islam is a threat to our current system of freedoms and unless one wishes to surrender those then at some point we are going to have to decide how to deal with the Muslim threat. That is the long and the short of it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.