| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa North |
| Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood may be adaptation of political Islam |
| 2006-02-03 |
| Mustafa Mohamed Mustafa, a legislator from the Muslim Brotherhood, stood on the Egyptian parliament's tiered floor, pulled out a copy of the constitution and waved it at the speaker, Fathi Sorour, who belongs to the ruling party of President Hosni Mubarak. It was a sign, under parliamentary rules, that he wanted to speak, and he did, criticizing the government for allowing an old French aircraft carrier to pass through the Suez Canal on its way to India's shores to be dismembered for scrap metal. Environmental groups said the ship, loaded with tons of asbestos, posed a pollution hazard. Sorour, with the backing of the parliamentary majority held by Mubarak's National Democratic Party, expelled Mustafa "because of his insistence on speaking in a loud voice" and the desire to "preserve order in the chamber." The entire Brotherhood bloc, 20 percent of parliament, walked out. Last weekend's uproarious session put on display Egypt's new political reality: the emergence of the Brotherhood, formally banned under Egypt's restrictions on religiously based parties, as the country's only vibrant opposition force. It is an experiment watched closely not only in Egypt, which has been ruled by a succession of military leaders for more than 50 years, but also around the Middle East, where Islamic political groups are using the wedge of elections to enter mainstream politics. The Brotherhood has long been the model for Islamic political movements and has close ties with the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, which won last week's Palestinian legislative elections. Though the Brotherhood formally renounces violence in Egypt, it provides outspoken support for Hamas's armed campaign against Israel's occupation of the West Bank. In Egypt, the Brotherhood has tried to quickly position itself as a mainstream reform party. Its parliamentary program reads like a high school civics book. It promotes freedom of speech, which means an end to Egypt's quarter-century-old emergency laws that prohibit gatherings of more than five people and permit prosecutions on such vague grounds as besmirching the country's image. It also promotes the independence of unions and professional organizations, transparency of government transactions, a crackdown on corruption and freedom for political prisoners. The Brotherhood is not pressing for Islamic-oriented social changes, such as mandatory use of veils by women or a ban on alcohol. "No one needs be afraid of us," said Essam Erian, a top Brotherhood official. He pointed out that the group was cooperating with other political parties and pro-democracy movements to forge a strategy of street demonstrations and propaganda to promote reforms. "We want to be more than a voice," Erian said. "We want to take action." In month-long legislative elections last November and December, running its candidates as independents to skirt the government's ban on its political activity, the Brotherhood won 88 of 454 seats. It put up only 130 candidates so as not to alarm Egyptians, the group's leaders said. Secular opposition parties barely made a dent at the polls. After the elections, the Brotherhood attracted criticism from a number of parties that otherwise have nothing in common. Gamal Mubarak, the president's son and leading candidate to succeed his aging father, said the group's emergence was "having negative repercussions on the electoral and political process." He suggested the ban on religious parties might be enforced. "The question of how we should deal at the political and legal levels with attempts to circumvent the national consensus banning religious parties is on the table," Mubarak told the state-run Roz al-Yusef newspaper. "The group has no legal existence, so from the legal point of view we must deal with it on that basis." On Jan. 6, Ayman Zawahiri, an Egyptian fugitive who is Osama bin Laden's top aide, issued a video message from hiding in which he attacked the Brotherhood for being an unwitting tool of U.S. policy in the Middle East. "That is the truth of the political game America is playing in Egypt, through presidential and parliamentary elections, to exploit the masses and their love for Islam," he said. "They said they won 30 seats, now they say they have won 80, and in five years' time they will say 100. And so goes strategy to concede them some space." A few days later, Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian who leads al Qaeda in Iraq, also attacked the Brotherhood. In an Internet audio message, he asked: "How can anyone choose any other path but that of jihad? I appeal to the Islamic party: Abandon this strategy which is a losing one for Sunnis." Erian responded with irony, calling the critics of the Brotherhood "a strange alliance." The Brotherhood is hobbled in parliament by the ruling party's two-thirds majority. Mubarak's party not only can pass any legislation it wants, it can make constitutional changes. The Brotherhood can use the body as a forum, as it did in the case of the French ship. It returned to the floor of parliament after Mustafa issued a pro forma apology. In lieu of legislative clout, the Brotherhood peppers committees with requests for information. Last week, it demanded a report on torture from the defense committee. It also presented the Interior Ministry with a questionnaire on the status of 30,000 detainees it considers held illegally. As part of a pan-Egypt charm offensive, the parliamentary bloc formally wished Christians a Merry Christmas. The Brotherhood's disciplined presence has forced one change. Parliament used to hold morning and evening sessions, but ruling-party delegates regularly missed the late-night meetings. Because votes can be held no matter how many delegates are absent, the Brotherhood's insistence on attending all sessions with a full delegation forced the ruling party to curb its absenteeism, and parliament voted to move the night sessions to the afternoon. Brotherhood members come and go from the parliament chamber to meet the five-times-a-day prayer requirement. The other night at the close of a session, several were on their knees praying in a lounge decorated in ersatz ancient Egyptian style, with a statue of a pharaoh at one end. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #8 Pappy, I hope CaziFarkus is not banned. He is knowledgeable, articulate and adds to the discussion, even if some do not find his stridency palatable. Also as much as I dislike Aris and his Greek snobbish attitude, I found him articulate and hope he wasn't banned. Boris was another matter. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-02-03 23:37 |
| #7 Bush-freedom is: a salient, their salient. This coming from someone who posts from Calgary, Alberta. Ooops - used to post from Calgary, Alberta... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-02-03 23:27 |
| #6 May the Powers-that-are grant your vision comes true in a human, rather than Godly, time frame, Dorothy/Hupomoger Clans9827. That's a much better idea than the total war that the Islamic world seems to be working to call down upon itself. I'll click my heels together, too, even if my shoes aren't silver. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-03 22:08 |
| #5 Call me Dorothy… Makes me think.. The M.E. seems to have gone through more psychological, impact and information-sharing changes in the past 2 years than they have experience in the past 2,000. Even the rabble in remote caves have access to their neighbours – sons – friends – internet reach to the outside world. Facts seem to be leaking in, some places. The screaming, gun-firing mobs can see themselves on tee-wee at night – right along with – and what must seem horrid juxtaposition eventually – general news stories. Stories from more civilized parts. The previously unheard-of thought (faint hope) of human rights is taking spark. Mind you, when the women of Palestine learn their first object lesson of democracy – campaigners and politicians lie to get your vote (oh, by Allah, why the surprise? ) – and find they don’t get the freedoms and riches promised; there may be a few surprises for Hamas in future. Never underestimate the power of a women angered at being lied to. Remember Mum? The cartoon furor may help. Give it time for the sight of their own reactions to come back via the same internet community. Faint hope. Some are starting to see it now. Iraq’s comments intrigued – a call for calm. The slowly, slowly and unrelenting introduction to real dignity that Bush and America (an coalitions) seem to have been effecting in Afghanistan and Iraq may yet prove to be the most useful card in the deck. Self-pondering is starting to happen. May I venture miraculous if trend continues? The tragic sinking of the Al Salaam provides a timely juxtaposition of justifiable rage – and a clearer target for the true anger. As the learnings of the last 2 years have catapulted change in the ME, there is now an abrupt upswing in access to media to a much larger audience, faster than ever before – blogs and reasonable discourse available as never before – and perhaps this mirror will effect change for the better. Sooner rather than too late, I hope. But it comes. I’ll tap my shoes 3 times and go home now. |
| Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-02-03 20:27 |
| #4 Ok, can somebody tell me what a SLOG is? I know the answers to some of Mr. Farkus' questions (anguished because he's concluded that "fry 'em up" is likely to be the only workable response in the end, impatient with ignorant asses because he's met so many of them, knows from personal experience more than Mr. Farkus' fave editorialists, and anyway has a business to run between posting to Rantburg and dating Vegas chorus girls...) But even after googling, that SLOG thingie has me stumped. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-03 17:14 |
| #3 .com: You don't think that the anguish that drives your ad hominem tangents, is plain and obvious? If you have lost a family member in the SLOG, then you might want to question the status quo ante: limited war in the face of a mortal enemy that is both strengthening every day, and broadening in its reach. So you refuse to read editorials which question whether democracy can work where would be embracers are programed to believe that only their deity may legislate. That wouldn't leave you with much reading material these days. If you are passionate about counter-terror, then get out of the subjective spin swamp and posit something that will work. The Germans, the Japanese, the Russians could - and did - change after defeat and ideological collapse. I believe this enemy cannot. Bush-freedom is: a salient, their salient. If the cartoon-rage reaches your neighborhood, then you might channel your bellicosity against the real enemy. |
| Posted by: CaziFarkus 2006-02-03 09:51 |
| #2 NaziFartus - Geez you're the ass-end of a one-trick pony. Egypt was and is a tyranny. Mubarak didn't lock up MuzBros for us - he did it for himself. Yes, Bush is trying to liberalize the M.E. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. No one has ever tried any of this before. And you know what? He has to try, whether you like it or not. Apparently that fact is just too deep for you to comprehend. There's what you "know", which consists of carefully selected factoids from the books you advertise you're reading or your favorite websites, piled up as some sort of altar of truth, and then there's the shit you pull out of your ass and present as the conclusion. It's far less compelling to those who do not share your illness than you obviously hope. Three things are absofuckinglutely certain: 1) Many of your posts, when the cherry-picked nuggets are sifted, analyzed, and set aside, reveal a core that's solely obsessed with laying the entire world's ills and blame at Bush's feet. What absurd drivel. It's BDS of a particularly twisty-curvy variety, but BDS nonetheless. 2) The world was seriously fucked up looong before Bush ever came on the scene - and he has done and will do infinitely more to unfuck it than you. This will be true for all eternity. 3) You are tedious and inane. Have a very nice day. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-03 05:03 |
| #1 After WW2, Venezuela and Cuba indulged political-Marxism. (Few are aware that Cuban President Batista was the first Latin leader to include Communists in his Cabinet). The result of this indulgence? Communist organizations embraced both political- and revolutionary-Marxism, a policy continued in the "doble cara" (two-faced) practices of Central American Communists in the Seventies. Fortunately, US governments of those days chose to support repression of Communists and, although the Castro tyranny sneaked into power in Cuba, Communist expansion was effectively contained. Why has the current US regime embraced political-Islam to the point of both coercing Egypt's secular government to legalize the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and to releasing two-thirds of the 19,000 MB animals that they had locked up on Sept. 11, 2001. The dogmatic basis of this inclusivism is: let them vote and those of the "noble faith" will come to embrace Western values, and adopt friendly attitudes to America. Reality dictates asking: where is the evidence that inclusivism either has worked, or can possibly work? Subsidized political-Islam is a disaster, as the cartoon contraversy has revealed: given indulgence, Muslims will take license to embrace jihad terror. Sanctioned revolutionary-Islam, whose terrorists expand bloody operations, combined with subsidized political-Islam, which works to defeat counter-terror, is a recipe for catastrophe. Chamberlain is dead; Chamberlainism lives and thrives. |
| Posted by: CaziFarkus 2006-02-03 03:14 |