Brotherhood Bashing; Spreading Ignorance

“If Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini were alive today, he would celebrate the expansion of his Islamist vision.”

This is how Mohamed Elmenshawy starts his article criticizing the MB on their unofficial party platform that has been floating around for a couple of months. And it pisses me off. I really hate this uninformed, sensationalist, alarmist Islamist-bashing bullshit line. I criticized a similar, if marginally better-articulated, position by Amr Hamzawy from Carnegie. Like these people, i dont like the MB (although there’s a lot to respect and be intrigued by). And i sure as hell would hate to be ruled by their beliefs. But that’s the thing: They’re their beliefs, which, in the democratic ideal, they are absolutely entitled to. As before, i’ll note some of the issues i have.

Take this for example:

Perhaps the most alarming feature of the draft platform is the call to create a Majlis Ulama, or Council of Islamic Scholars, that could end up being elected by Islamic clerics, not through free and fair elections. Reminiscent of Iran’s Guardian Council, this undemocratically selected body could have the power vested by the state to veto any and all legislation passed by the Egyptian parliament and approved by the president that is not compatible with Islamic sharia law. [emphasis added]

First off: could?!?! What is this could based on? Conjecture? The problem is that people dont take note of the could. They only register the substantive part. I think it’s very immature to spread speculation. Perhaps if this was supported by some indication that they would indeed by appointed, it would carry a little more weight. Second: i dont know about anyone else but an elected council (provided it’s open, free elections, of course) influencing laws sounds pretty ok to me. Like a house of parliament. As i’ve stated before, it could be a reformed (reformulated, replaced) Shura council, making it the upper house. Third: what the hell is wrong with wanting to base law on shari`a? It doesnt matter where the law came from. What matters is the process by which it is legislated. If the majority of people wish to be governed in a certain manner, then so be it. Unless the argument is over the merits of a majority-rule system.

Moving on:

Still, having gone since 1928 without releasing any official party platform, the Muslim Brotherhood has escaped an honest and critical review – until now. In publishing this draft, it missed a golden opportunity to prove its pro-democratic stance. [emphasis added]

What kind of bullshit statement (in italcs) is this? Thousands upon thousands of pages have been written in many languages about the MB and its many local and international offshoots. Much of it has been critical. First: How can you take yourself seriously, when you claim that only parties can be critically reviewed? Second: How can something that’s not a party release a party platform? I suppose it’s not then surprising to see this statement a few paragraphs down:

Many people used to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood was simply a political movement using religion to gain support and present itself in contrast to the ruling National Democratic Party, but now it appears that the inverse is true. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religious movement using politics to spread its values and beliefs.

Actually, in 1928 the Muslim Brothers were founded as a SOCIAL movement to spread Islam one person at a time through proselytizing. Over the decades the organization’s means and methods (including adopting violence for a few decades) have evolved to react to myriad changes both internal and external. It was only recently (as of the 80s) that it began to participate in electoral politics first on a syndicate/union/student level and then later in parliament. (There’s an excellent article on just this by Mona El Ghobashy, which i’m a little lazy to look up.)

Just a couple of brief other points: First: I dont like the way there’s so much nit-picking. FOr example, while i disagree with restricting presidency based on sex or religion, i think that it’s a rather irrelevant point in a country where female and coptic representation has dwindled over the decades to next to nothing (usually the appointees). Let’s get some female decision makers elsewhere before moving on to bigger things. Second: This piece doesnt suffer so much from the problem, but i dislike how people are constantly calling the MB on supposed contradictions in positions and statements. On what basis are the US democrat nominees being selected? Isnt it ostensibly at least in part based on their differences of opinion? Are they not part of the same party? Is the democratic party being duplicitous? Should it, therefore be shunned? No. What friggin nonsense.

I’ll leave it at that.