In a recent Guardian article, Amina Nowaira grapples with the Muslim Brotherhood's decision to not participate in Egypt's tumultuous Revolution. The reason why it wouldn't is rather obvious. Imagine the Democrats participating in Occupy. Not only would that entail an anti-establishment stance (which would destroy their standing with Conservative Democrats), but there are some very practical holes in just how they would participate. Would they send a shadow police force to battle the tear-gas wielding NYPD? I think not.
So what would the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist party founded in Egypt, do? Should they send protesters to protest on the side of the Egyptians? Well, that would be taking an anti-Establishment stance. How would that play on the ballots? Not so well, indeed. Nowaira suggests that the Brotherhood hasn't been doing anything. But it has. Badie in an interview on State TV said, in his own words, "We refused to sit in a meeting that is filled with remnants of the National Democratic Party and old regime." There is a strong tendency within the Muslim Brotherhood to fight the old regime, filled with its anti-democratic sentiments, despite its name. (Eerily similar to the National Socialist Party).
But before we discuss the Muslim Brotherhood in any more detail, we must first clarify a few points. Despite all that certain rightist editorialists have to say about it, the Muslim Brotherhood is actually the best option for the Middle East. In his Daily Mail article "Arab Spring Aftermath: Netanyahu Finally Makes His Move," Thomas Fleming exposes, unintentionally of course, the most prominent misconception of the Muslim Brotherhood.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood differ on a very important matter. The Muslim Brotherhood is actually the oldest party rooted in the Islamist ideology. Hamas is an "offshoot" formed in 1980s. It was formed as a pro-Palestine party with a one-item agenda: "liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation," a very justifiable cause that no foreigner has a right to pass judgement on. But there is a fundamental difference between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood that requires a closer look. The Muslim Brotherhood has been criticized time and time again by various terrorist groups, even al-Qaeda itself, for being to democratic and non-violent; whereas Hamas is known to pair itself with these terrorist groups. In fact, Hamas is so well-affiliated with these groups that many novices actually consider it to be a terrorist group. But the word of the novice should never trusted, anyway.
Indeed the Muslim Brotherhood is the very progressive prophet of the Islamist ideal. But many critics, like Norwairia, point to its choice to remain a third-party in the Arab Spring as a way to limit its legitimacy. However, this policy should be seen as move towards legitimacy. First, to prove by contradiction: consider what Hamas would have done. Like its very charter narrates, Hamas would have to interfere in this civil dispute, thereby, taking advantage of civil unrest for political benefits. What does this do for the party? It opens its legs to the gun-wielder, instead of the penman. And once this happens, the party goes to hell (literally). But this is a sign of legitimacy and it can be proven as such in a more direct way. The Muslim Brotherhood's inaction is a very non "third world" party move. No other "third world" party would do that. This shows that the Muslim Brotherhood lies above guns, tear gas and dust-thrust protest. It has taken on a name for itself as a "peace by order" type party like many of its "first world" counterparts. This is the future of the Islamist goal.
To say Islamism is wrong because non-secular democracy is not a democracy is a very ignorant and narrow conception of democracy. Alluding to Dahlian democracy, it becomes clear that Western democratic tenents like "separation of Church and State" cannot work in all democratic states. The main purpose of democracy is consideration, that is the consideration of majorities and minorities, of everyone. Policy must be the result of negotiation. Because Middle-Eastern countries have overwhelming majorities in one religion, saying that Church and State must be separate in Middle Eastern democracies is ignorant, if anything. How can the considerations of the Muslims (who are, on an average, 98% of the population in Arab nations) be made if Islam is not embraced. Indeed Islamism is key to Middle Eastern reformation. (Read Relgious Remnants of a Protest Past for more info on this matter).
So what would the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist party founded in Egypt, do? Should they send protesters to protest on the side of the Egyptians? Well, that would be taking an anti-Establishment stance. How would that play on the ballots? Not so well, indeed. Nowaira suggests that the Brotherhood hasn't been doing anything. But it has. Badie in an interview on State TV said, in his own words, "We refused to sit in a meeting that is filled with remnants of the National Democratic Party and old regime." There is a strong tendency within the Muslim Brotherhood to fight the old regime, filled with its anti-democratic sentiments, despite its name. (Eerily similar to the National Socialist Party).
But before we discuss the Muslim Brotherhood in any more detail, we must first clarify a few points. Despite all that certain rightist editorialists have to say about it, the Muslim Brotherhood is actually the best option for the Middle East. In his Daily Mail article "Arab Spring Aftermath: Netanyahu Finally Makes His Move," Thomas Fleming exposes, unintentionally of course, the most prominent misconception of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Every time we hear about a democratic uprising in the Arab world, whether in Iraq, in Palestine, or in North Africa, the movement is either taken over by an Islamic extremist group like Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, or sectarian fighting breaks out, as it did in Iraq. Somehow Christians always end up getting targeted.How is Mr. Fleming, and all those who believe in this conviction, any different from those groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and other Islamic-centrist inflamants? They aren't. Christians are not "the victims" in all cases. They are just the minority. Dare such a thought be constrained with British society. Dare I allude to the "Sharia Neighboorhoods?" Please, Daily Mail, don't go there. Minorities are always being suppressed, that does not mean they should become majorities. (God forbid such a status be given to English Muslims). Rather they should be better incorporated into the system. But there is a specific semantic err in Mr. Flemings article. He dares put Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood on the same plane.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2066298/Arab-Spring-aftermath-Netanyahu-Finally-Makes-His-Move.html#ixzz1ekvmnFUB
This couldn't be further from the truth. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood differ on a very important matter. The Muslim Brotherhood is actually the oldest party rooted in the Islamist ideology. Hamas is an "offshoot" formed in 1980s. It was formed as a pro-Palestine party with a one-item agenda: "liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation," a very justifiable cause that no foreigner has a right to pass judgement on. But there is a fundamental difference between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood that requires a closer look. The Muslim Brotherhood has been criticized time and time again by various terrorist groups, even al-Qaeda itself, for being to democratic and non-violent; whereas Hamas is known to pair itself with these terrorist groups. In fact, Hamas is so well-affiliated with these groups that many novices actually consider it to be a terrorist group. But the word of the novice should never trusted, anyway.
Indeed the Muslim Brotherhood is the very progressive prophet of the Islamist ideal. But many critics, like Norwairia, point to its choice to remain a third-party in the Arab Spring as a way to limit its legitimacy. However, this policy should be seen as move towards legitimacy. First, to prove by contradiction: consider what Hamas would have done. Like its very charter narrates, Hamas would have to interfere in this civil dispute, thereby, taking advantage of civil unrest for political benefits. What does this do for the party? It opens its legs to the gun-wielder, instead of the penman. And once this happens, the party goes to hell (literally). But this is a sign of legitimacy and it can be proven as such in a more direct way. The Muslim Brotherhood's inaction is a very non "third world" party move. No other "third world" party would do that. This shows that the Muslim Brotherhood lies above guns, tear gas and dust-thrust protest. It has taken on a name for itself as a "peace by order" type party like many of its "first world" counterparts. This is the future of the Islamist goal.
To say Islamism is wrong because non-secular democracy is not a democracy is a very ignorant and narrow conception of democracy. Alluding to Dahlian democracy, it becomes clear that Western democratic tenents like "separation of Church and State" cannot work in all democratic states. The main purpose of democracy is consideration, that is the consideration of majorities and minorities, of everyone. Policy must be the result of negotiation. Because Middle-Eastern countries have overwhelming majorities in one religion, saying that Church and State must be separate in Middle Eastern democracies is ignorant, if anything. How can the considerations of the Muslims (who are, on an average, 98% of the population in Arab nations) be made if Islam is not embraced. Indeed Islamism is key to Middle Eastern reformation. (Read Relgious Remnants of a Protest Past for more info on this matter).
No comments:
Post a Comment