The Danger of the War on the Muslim Brotherhood

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

The Arab-Islamic region is witnessing a war, even if limited, on the Muslim Brotherhood, on the grounds that it is a group working to “control certain states and monopolize power.” For example, the Brotherhood suffers severe hardship in Egypt, classified as terrorists, and Egyptian media continues to wage a broad media campaign against them, saying things about them that are sometimes true and sometimes simply unjust.

The Brotherhood also suffers difficult circumstances and persecution in other Arab states, such as the United Arab Emirates, and has previously been pursued and struck in Syria.

Now the media campaign against what is called “political Islam” is intensifying, with the Brotherhood accused of embodying a political Islam that seeks to annul the other and govern people according to jurists’ teachings under Islamic law, and to destroy the civil state built on the principles of democracy, the peaceful transfer of power, respect for the other opinion, and respect for the citizen regardless of religious, ethnic, or gender affiliation. Alongside this campaign, adherents of religious thought suffer many forms of persecution, deprivation, and mobilization campaigns against them.

The Brotherhood and Political Islam

I honestly do not know who coined the concept of “political Islam” or why, but it is a concept of unclear meaning, loosely defined, and can be subjected to a number of definitions depending on the definer’s point of view.

What is strange is that the term carries an uncomfortable ring to the ear, indicating accusation and perhaps even mockery more than it indicates a scientific term that can be studied and scrutinized. There are many theories and philosophical propositions that people have rallied around, which later crystallized into political trends, yet we have not found anyone speaking of “political socialism” or “political capitalism.” These, in theory, establish a way of life, and their adherents have worked to contest elections in various countries — some won, some did not — and those who won worked to implement what they believe in, trying to draw the general public toward converting to their philosophical creed.

These groups were never subjected to any harmful classifications or broad media attacks the way the Muslim Brotherhood is. Is there anything scientific or objective about mobilizing so many forces to shine a spotlight on condemning the Muslim Brotherhood and denying its right to contest elections, while others are spared defamation and the denial of rights?

Democracy and Accepting the Other

The question that always presents itself: is it democratic for a person or a party to permit political activity for themselves while denying it to others? Why is it my right and not the right of others? Discrimination in rights is not democracy, and intellectuals and academics now — some known for defending democracy — have begun waging broad campaigns against the Muslim Brotherhood and various Islamic organizations, even non-terrorist ones, simply because they embrace Islam or the Islamic idea. These people cannot be democrats — they accept democracy for themselves but deny it to others. This is an unacceptable contradiction, and whoever practices depriving others of their rights cannot claim to embrace democratic thought.

Those now pursuing the Muslim Brotherhood say they themselves are not exclusionary and are against excluding the other, and that the door is supposed to be open to everyone without discrimination, if society is to remain united. If we look at Egypt now, supporters of the current regime cite exclusion as a fundamental reason for rising up against President Mohamed Morsi, accusing him of working to “Brotherhood-ize” Egypt — but if we compare the exclusion Morsi practiced with what the Egyptian authorities and courts are doing now, we find that the new regime is far more severe and extensive in excluding others than Morsi ever was.

Egypt has now banned the Brotherhood organization and stripped them of their political rights, and continues to wage very broad media campaigns against them. As for the Egyptian courts, they have drowned themselves in mass death sentences that will condemn Egyptian political life for a long time to come, and may become historical evidence of the narrow-mindedness of a segment of Egyptian politicians.

If the other does not accept us, that should not mean we reject the other. It is a democratic principle, and an Islamic principle too, that the door to dialogue and mutual understanding not be closed, given the gains this brings for everyone and for society as a whole. If the other rejects us, we must invite them to dialogue and a table of understanding, hoping we might mend fences so that public life runs smoothly — it is not permissible to respond to the exclusionary with wars and security persecution.

As someone who follows political life in the Arab homeland, I understand well that Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood group, are exclusionary and do not accept the other unless he becomes an element within their own ranks. In my view, the solution lies in raising the level of cultural and intellectual pressure on them, so they change what they are, so that things do not spiral out of control and chaos spreads through society, and so that instead of building the state we do not end up demolishing it and destroying the social fabric.

The Accusation of Terrorism

A terrorist has no right to accuse others of terrorism, even if they have practiced it. The Arab regimes are the terrorists — they are the ones who have kept the Arab human being in a state of constant terror through their security apparatuses, intelligence services especially. The Arab regimes are the last ones entitled to speak of terrorism and terrorists.

Of course, we cannot help but place America and Israel at the top of the world’s list of terrorists, since Israel and America talk a great deal about terrorists — this is the way of one who sees accusations closing in on him and flees before his accusers by accusing others. The Arab regimes accuse the Brotherhood of terrorism, but we want to know which Arab regime is less terroristic than the terrorism of the terrorists it accuses.

If we compare, for instance, what Morsi did with what Sisi is doing now, which of the two do we find more terroristic? The matter requires a thorough, scientific, and objective study, not media outlets speaking according to moods, but according to clear, objective facts.

As for the current Egyptian regime’s talk of Brotherhood “terrorism” in the streets, I have written on this subject before, and my point of view was that Egypt is gambling with its own stability by pursuing the Brotherhood, and no one should expect the Brotherhood to remain silent and calm in the face of the measures taken against them.

They will respond, and anyone following the situation expects the Brotherhood to destabilize Egypt in response to the regime’s measures against them. A wise political system is one that works to unite people across all their spectrums and proves it is a system for everyone, embracing everyone. But the regime proceeded with its policies without acknowledging the historical trend: that groups, when cornered, will inevitably defend themselves.

The Difficulty of Eliminating the Brotherhood

There is great excess in the current campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood, because the campaign does not take into account the democratic values its own executors claim to believe in, and gives no meaningful weight to the importance of social cohesion in the history of peoples. This campaign is bound to spread hatred and animosity in people’s hearts, inflame vendettas and suspicions between citizens, and split people into rival groups and organizations, ultimately fragmenting and weakening society and dragging the state, in the end, into a state of weakness and disgrace.

It seems those running the campaign do not realize that the Muslim Brotherhood group constitutes the largest global organization today, spread across every corner of the earth, with supporters prepared to defend and protect it. It is a group widely spread across Arab and Islamic countries and capable of winning elections if given the chance to contest them. The Brotherhood’s members are widely spread, enjoying many supporters across the Arab-Islamic arena, and the general public overall stands with them and may elect them because of their embrace of the Islamic idea.

The general public in the Arab-Islamic region overall leans toward religion. They are not necessarily devout, but they see the way out of people’s crises as lying in applying Islam as a political system, because it establishes justice. We are not here to prove or disprove this, but simply speaking of people’s inclinations, desires, and views, and any politician is supposed to take into account people’s orientations and convictions regarding public affairs — a politician who overlooks this suffers from stumbling in managing public affairs.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not alone on the field — it enjoys the support of many Islamic organizations, prepared to take up arms in defense of the Brotherhood if the matter requires it, not necessarily out of love for the Brotherhood but in defense of the Islamic idea.

Perhaps a state like the UAE can contain the Brotherhood because of its own circumstances, but it is difficult for states like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan to succeed in their efforts to rid themselves of the Brotherhood group. The UAE does not suffer from the group’s spread among its citizens, and it also lacks a large population to begin with, whereas the densely populated states that have witnessed the Brotherhood’s gradual spread will find it difficult to handle the phenomenon as they please, and they gamble with their stability and social cohesion if they attempt the Egyptian approach.

Understanding with Islamists

I use the word “Islamists” here loosely, because millions of Muslims are Islamist without being members of any organization. If Arab regimes want to establish democracy, and to observe the foundations and principles of justice in Arab societies, they have no choice but to open channels with non-terrorist Islamic groups.

Through these channels, a number of matters that characterize Islamic groups and reflect negatively on all Arab societies can be discussed. Foremost among these matters is the question of groups possessing the absolute truth to the exclusion of others, and judging others culturally, socially, and religiously based on this truth. Islamists ought to become convinced that no one possesses the absolute truth, that free thought is the foundation of creative building, and that no one has the right to bind others to the values and ideas they themselves believe in.

This leads us to the necessity of talking with Islamic groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, about intellectual terrorism, because all of them, whether armed or not, practice intellectual terrorism, even if to varying degrees. It is also necessary to develop cultural programs at the level of the Arab homeland involving both Islamic groups and ruling political systems, to contain exclusionary Arab thought, and to develop educational programs that teach people, from the very beginning and in kindergartens, to accept the other and reject tribal and partisan fanaticism.

In the Arab arena, we reject the other through our upbringing — we have grown accustomed to being tribal and fanatical, our parties have turned into fanatical tribes, and rejecting the other has become an accepted social habit. We must all work in the opposite direction, hoping we might learn how to truly live together, not merely coexist.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “خطورة الحرب على الإخوان المسلمين” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.